Proceedings of
UNESCO Chair Programme on
Cultural Heritage andRisk Management,

INTERNATIONAL TRAINING
COURSE (ITC) on DISASTERRISK MANAGEMENT of
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Ritsumeikan University and
10 YEARS ANNVERSARYSYMPOSIUM /ACCOMPLISHING REPORTof the TOYOTA FOUNDATION'INITIATIVE PROGRAM'
2016, 11th year
From 10th to 26th September 2016,
At Kyoto, Kobe and Sasayama, Japan
Organized by Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural
Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH), Kyoto, JapanIn Cooperation with UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS / ICORP
Supported by Toyota Foundation “Initiative Program”

Date of Publication: February 2017
Published by: Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan
University 58 Komatsubara Kita-machi, Kita-ku, Kyoto 603-8341 Japan
In cooperation with: UNESCO
ICCROM
ICOMOS / ICORP
Supported by: Toyota Foundation “Initiative Program”
Authors: Participants of ITC2016 and Former participant of ITC
Coordinated by: Rohit JIGYASU, UNESCO Chair Holder, Professor
Dowon KIM, Associate Professor
Layout by: ADTHREE Publishing Co., Ltd.
4-27-37 Higashi Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Japan
Printed by: HOKUTO Printing Co., Ltd.
38-2 Shimogamo Takagi-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 604-0864 Japan© All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced, restored in retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form without the written permission from the Publisher.

Preface
Recently devastating earthquakes in Italy and Myanmar in 2016 have caused significant loss to richcultural heritage. Not long time ago, floods in Balkan region in 2014 affected numerous historic towns,
2011 floods in Thailand severely damaged the World Heritage Site of Ayutthaya. As exemplified
through these incidents, cultural heritage is confronted with various kinds of disaster risks, due tonatural hazards such as floods, fires, earthquakes etc. as well as human induced events such as
terrorism, vandalism, armed conflict and arson. As a result, many cultural heritage sites including
those on the World Heritage List have been significantly damaged in the recent years.
Climate Change is contributing towards increased intensity and frequency of hydro- meteorologicalevents such as heavy rainfall, cyclones, hurricanes, storms, sea level rise and extreme temperatures.
1990–1999: around 200 climate related disasters per year, while the following decade (2000-2009)
witnessed nearly 350 climate related disasters on average per year. In this period, 55 million people
were affected on average by climate related disasters annually, and 789 billion US dollars was theestimated damage.
As a result, many heritage sites located in global hot spots such as coastal areas especially below
sea level are exposed to risks of inundation greater than ever before. Also there might be low
frequency high intensity incidents of flooding that may trigger landslides along mountain slopes.
Moreover, world is facing increased rate of urbanization than ever before. Number of people living
in cities equaled those in villages in 2007 and is rising ever since. Such a fast pace of urbanizationaccompanied by densification, poorly constructed buildings and overburdened infrastructure isputting tremendous pressure on heritage sites especially those located in urban areas, thereby
increasing their disaster vulnerability. Considering these issues, the 11th International Training
Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage specifically focused on “Protecting
Cultural Heritage from Risk of Natural Disasters including those induced by Climate Change”
However, despite the increasing vulnerability of cultural heritage to hazards, disaster risk reduction
unfortunately does not register as a priority area for management. This is supported by the fact that
only handful of World Heritage Properties have formulated disaster risk management plans andeven fewer and implemented them. Among other factors, this is result of low levels of awarenessamong various stakeholders and the public and the limited capacity building of those in charge ofprotection and management.
Therefore it is important to conduct site-based risk assessments and, where appropriate, develop
the necessary disaster risk management plans outlining mitigation, emergency preparedness,
response and recovery measures for various hazards to which the properties are exposed. On theother hand, measures must be taken to advance heritage concerns in the wider agenda for disasterrisk reduction and to raise awareness among heritage managers and professionals.
This necessitates building the capacity of heritage managers, civic defense/emergency response
agencies as well as decision makers from heritage as well as disaster management fields on reducing
disaster risks to cultural heritage. In this direction, a pioneering initiative has been undertaken by the
UNESCO Chair established within the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto (Japan), which in cooperation with ICCROM, ICOMOS-ICORP and the
UNESCO World Heritage Centre has been organizing international training course on disaster risk
management of cultural heritage every year since 2006. The target groups for this course include
government institutions, departments, universities, NGOs and private consultants from cultural
heritage, as well as relevant disaster management fields. In 2016 10th Anniversary Symposium of theInternational Training Course was celebrated by inviting some former participants of the course, whohave been undertaking various initiatives in their home countries and regions based on the learnings
from the course. In these proceedings we have included the report on this 10th Year Symposium anda special report by one of the former participants.
The proceedings also contains brief reports on disaster risk management plans for case study sites
from the home countries of the participants based on the outlines prepared by them during the course.
The importance of this training course has been globally recognized as seen with increasing number
of applicants from all over the world and our institute hopes to continue this initiative in the future.
Rohit JIGYASUUNESCO Chair Holder, Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto

Preface
The “Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)”
was established as a permanent research institution in 2013 and has handed over activities fromformer organization as “Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage” which
was started by Prof. Kenzo Toki from 2003.
The “UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage”
started from 2006 as one of our important educational activities, and fortunately we can continue
it up to 10 years’ anniversary supported by UNESCO, ICCROM, Toyota Foundation, Ritsumeikan
University and many national and international organizations. I would like to thank these colleagues
for supporting us and participants from all over the world. The purposes of this training course
are education of practical experts in each field of cultural heritage conservation and disaster risk
management, and development of draft plan for disaster risk management to secure the safety ofpeople and cultural value in each cultural heritage site and historical city. I hope these plans to be
actual projects in each country and contribute to cultural advancement in the world.
Through the ITC in 2016 with theme as “Protecting cultural heritage from risks of natural disasters
including those induced by climate change”, most of participants thought about developing theircase project toward multiple and simultaneous disaster risk, and did their best within short period.
The outcomes were fantastic and some of participants are already starting their project in their site.
And 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/ Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative
Program' was held in the last day of ITC. Fortunately, we could invite 7 of former participants from theworld who have started their project in real world and we could learn much from their experiments.
This year’s participants, all the resource persons and staffs could share the importance of this activity
and strong expectation for future continuity from the world.
Thank you all again for supporting this activity, and please keep in touch with us for inheriting cultural
heritages for next generation.
Takeyuki OKUBO
Director, R-DMUCH
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Ritsumeikan University

Preface
The International Training Course, Ritsumeikan University is the first attempt at the international
level to provide high level education opportunities on the topic of natural disasters for people in thecultural heritage field and on the topic of cultural heritage for people in the natural disaster field. In
the 11 years that the course has been implemented, we have had 1007 applicants and 116 people
from 53 countries have been trained. The accepted number of trainee is only 11.6% of applicants
and it is small percentage. Particularly in 2012, we could receive 9 people as trainee among 175
applicants and this is only 5%. We, therefore, have been proposed to increase the number of trainee
from past applicants and people of relevant fields, both of domestic and international communities.
The course, however, is financially supported by COE (Center of Excellence) program of Japanese
Government and the budget of the training course is not large enough to accept all the applicantsbecause the course is one of the projects of COE program.
Recognizing our activities and achievements for ITC, the Toyota Foundation has decided to support
the course for three years from the fiscal year 2014. Then the total budget has been almost doubled
and the number of trainee has increased. Moreover we could increase speakers not only fromdomestic but also abroad. In 2016, the last third year with the support from the Toyota foundation, we
could invite 15 trainees and it is the largest number same as 2015. On the other hand, we have been
proposed to establish a follow-up program from the graduates of our course and people of relevant
fields, which is to establish a similar course to our training course in their counties and communities.
We will carry out a second follow-up training course in March, 2017 in Kathmandu, Nepal where
people need quick recovery from the Gorkha earthquake which occurred in April, 2015.
In this way, the support by the Toyota Foundation allowed us to provide better course for more
people, so that our course has been receiving high evaluation from the international community. A
noteworthy fact is that trainees gave us very good assessment for our course. Hereby we appreciate
the recognition and evaluation of activities of our training course by the Toyota Foundation and wewould like to express our heart-full gratitude to the foundation. We promise to continue this training
course as one of our most important missions.
Kenzo TOKI
Representative, Toyota Foundation “Initiative Program”,
Enhancement of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Cultural Heritage and Risk
Management and Post-training Follow-up
Professor, Ritsumeikan University

Table of Contents
Preface3

1

9Introduction
1.1 Background and Objectivesof the 11th International Training Course 201610

1.2 Timetable of International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk
Management of Cultural Heritage 2016, 11th year, Ritsumeikan University
2

26

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects
by ITC2016 Participants

29<Archaeological Sites>
2.1 Mohenjo Daro Archeological Site, Sindh Province, District Larkana, Pakistan,by Amna SHUJA, from Pakistan

30

2.2 Disaster Risk Analysis in Volubilis Roman Archaeological Site, Morocco,
by Mohamed ROUAI, from Morocco36

2.3 Tajín (Thunderlight Deity) Arcaeological Site, México,
by Dulce Maria GRIMALDI SIERRA, from México

40

2.4 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for a World Heritage Sitein Danger: Chan Chan Archaeological Zone in Trujillo, Peru
by María Elena ALMÉSTAR URTEAGA, from Peru

44

<Historic Monuments, Sites and Settlements>
2.5 The Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina(B&H), by Nermina KATKIČ, from Bosnia and Herzegovina

48

2.6 Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama:
Portobelo-San Lorenzo, Panama, by Alberto Enrique PASCUAL,
from Panama

55

2.7 Mombasa Old Town, Kenya
by Fatma Said TWAHIR, from Kenya

59

2.8 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines:
The Case of the Historic Town of Vigan, by Sherwynne Bagoisan AGUB,
from Philippines

63

2.9 Disaster Risk Management Planning for Heritage in New Zealand:
Case Study Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area, Wellington,
by Vanessa Anne TANNER, from Newzealand682.10 Climate Change over the Historic City of Antigua Guatemala
by Barbara MINGUEZ GARCIA, from Spain75

2.11 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Qhapaq Ñan in Chile,by Claudia Cecilia GONZÁLEZ MUZZIO, from Chile81

2.12 Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve,
Romania, by Mihaela HǍRMǍNESCU, from Romania

86

2.13 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Petra Archeological Park, Jordan,
by Muhammad Fathi AL-ABSI, from Jordan

93

2.14 Case Study Project – Rio De Janeiro World Heritage, Tijuca National Park /Tijuca Forest Sector, Brazil by Maria Cristina Vereza LODI, from Brazil
3

99

Activities Undertaken after The International Training Course
by Former Participants

103

3.1 Cultural Heritage and Mitigation of Risk, Experience after ITC 2014, Ecuador
by Juan Diego BADILLO REYES, from Ecuador, ITC2014
4

104

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair
International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage /Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation'Initiative Program'109

4.1 Background and Objectives

110

4.2 Programme

111

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

112

Appendix213

List of Resource Persons

214

List of Participants

216

Photos of ITC 2016

217

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training
Course 2016

Disasters and Cultural Heritage
Recent disasters such as Nepal earthquakes in April and May 2015, earthquake and cyclones in
Philippines in 2014, fires in Lijiang, China in 2013 and 2014, the devastating tsunami in North Eastof Japan in 2011 and as well as earthquakes that hit Christchurch, New Zealand in 2010 and 2011,
Haiti and Chile in 2010 have caused enormous loss of life, property and cultural heritage. Thisdisaster has once again shown that cultural heritage is highly vulnerable to natural disasters suchas earthquake, the Tsunami, fire, floods and cyclones.
Therefore it is important to undertake proactive measures that can reduce risks to cultural heritage
from these catastrophic events through adequate mitigation and preparedness. In the post disaster
phase, the challenge is how to salvage heritage properties, which are at risk of demolition and toassess their damage. The long term challenge during recovery phase is how to repair and retrofit
them and undertake reconstruction that respects tangible as well as intangible heritage values.
In the light of these challenges, comprehensive risk management is essential for the protectionof cultural heritage from disasters. Therefore Cultural Heritage and Risk Management project ofInstitute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH)
aims to organize the International Training Programme to build the institutional capacity needed toformulate comprehensive risk management plans that are based on the characteristics of cultural
heritage and nature of hazards in the regional context.
One of the main reasons for extensive damage to cultural heritage is due to floods, typhoons,cyclones and other climate related hazards, whose frequency and intensity is increasing due tothe impacts of climate change. These may also cause secondary hazards such as landslides andthereby exacerbating the damage. Considering these issues, the 11th International Training Course
on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage will specifically focus on ‘Protecting cultural
heritage from risks of natural disasters including those induced by climate change.’101.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

Regional Distribution of World Heritage sites located on the Earthquake Zones

RegionCultural/Mix

0-100
km

100-200
km

100

Australia/New ZealandWithin
200km

Over
200km

Total

91

191

27%

513

73%

704

1

1

14%

6

86%

7

45%

6

55%

11

Caribbean

2

3

5

Central America

10

10

20

59%

14

41%

34 No.5

Central Asia

2

2

22%

7

78%

9

Eastern Africa

2

1

3

14%

18

86%

21

Eastern Asia

10

11

21

42%

29

58%

50 No.3

Eastern Europe

1

European Russia
Melanesia

1

Middle Africa

1

2%

56

98%

57

0

0%

14

100%

14

1

2

100%

0%

2

1

1

100%

0%

1

Northern Africa

3

7

21%

27

79%

34

Northern America

1

4

1

7%

13

93%

14

Northern Europe

1

1

2%

49

98%

50

8

16

24

57%

18

43%

42 No.2

6

1

7

39%

11

61%

18

0

0%

7

100%

7

Southern Asia

6

8

14

29%

34

71%

48 No.6

Southern Europe

35

23

58

45%

70

55%

128 No.1

0

0%

16

100%

16

8

21

40%

31

60%

52 No.3

2

2

2%

87

98%

89

Southern Africa

Western Africa
Western Asia

13

Western Europe
Natural

36

18

54

31%

120

69%

174

Total

136

109

245

28%

633

72%

878

Introduction

South America
Southeastern Asia

Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University and Its Training Course
The International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage is a follow-up
of the recommendations adopted at the Special Thematic Session on Risk Management for Cultural
Heritage held at UN-WCDR (World Conference on Disaster Reduction) in January 2005 in Kobe,
Hyogo, Japan. One of these recommendations advocated the need for the academic community
to develop scientific research, education and training programs incorporating cultural heritage inboth its tangible and intangible manifestations, into risk management and disaster recovery. The
importance of strengthening knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of disasterprevention at WH properties was reiterated also by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session(Vilnius, Lithuania, July 2006).
Furthermore, the “Declaration”, adopted at the International Disaster Reduction Conference (IDRC)
of Davos (August 2006) confirmed that “concern for heritage, both tangible and intangible, should
be incorporated into disaster risk reduction strategies and plans, which are strengthened throughattention to cultural attributes and traditional knowledge.” The Sendai Framework on Disaster
Risk Reduction recently adopted at the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai,
Japan has further highlighted the importance of protecting cultural heritage from disasters. Cultural
heritage has also been included one of the sectors in the new ten essentials that have been adopted
by UNISDR’s resilient city campaign.
11

In response to these recommendations by the international community, the Institute of Disaster
Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) has been acting asa focal point for organizing international research, training and information network in the field of
cultural heritage risk management and disaster mitigation. Besides R-DMUCH has also functioned
as the international secretariat for ICOMOS-International Scientific Committee on Risk Preparedness(ICORP) from 2011 to 2015 and many of its faculty are expert members of the Scientific Committee.
The past training courses have been attended by participants from China and Korea from East Asia;
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam from South-East Asia; Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka from South Asia; Australia, Fiji, New Zealandand Palau from the Pacific region; Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexicoand Peru from Latin America and the Caribbean; Albania, Croatia, Italy, Moldova, Netherlands andSerbia from Europe; Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Turkey from Middle East; Egypt,
Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda from Africa.
Objectives and Methodology of the Training Course
The main objective of the course is to provide an overview of the various aspects of disaster risk
management of cultural heritage. In particular, the course provides interdisciplinary training to:✓ Undertake an integrated risk assessment by analyzing the vulnerability of cultural heritage todisasters caused by natural and human induced hazards;✓ Build an integrated system for disaster risk management of cultural heritage, incorporating
prevention/mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery measures;✓ Formulate disaster risk management plans for cultural heritage that correspond to the urban andregional disaster management plans and policies; and✓ Establish an international scientific support network for risk management of cultural heritage inorder to build the institutional capacity needed to formulate comprehensive risk management
plans that are based on the characteristics of cultural heritage and nature of hazards in theregional context.
The course comprises lectures, site visits, workshops, discussions, team projects and individual/group presentations. Participants are expected to actively participate throughout the course. The
course aims at promoting the development of collaborations and network building among scholars
and professionals in cultural heritage protection. This course is provided scientific support by
UNESCO and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property (ICCROM)..

12

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

Based on the information obtained from lectures and site visits, and exercises through workshops,
the training course also sets the goal of raising planning skills in cultural heritage disaster prevention,by having each participant make a plan during a team project for the prevention of disaster to his/her country’s cultural heritage, in line with each country’s respective social and economic situation.
In order to do so, the Institute has asked the participants to prepare the relevant materials before
coming to Japan, so that the two participants from each country could learn from each other’s
experience through this process.
Special Theme of 2016 International Training Programme:
Protecting cultural heritage from risks of natural disasters including those induced by climatechangeClimate change is increasing the frequency of disasters caused by hydro-meteorological events
such as heavy rainfall, flash floods, cyclones, typhoons and storm surges. As a result, many heritage
sites located in global hot spots such as coastal areas especially below sea level are exposed
to risks of inundation greater than ever before. Also there might be low frequency high intensity
incidents of flooding that may trigger landslides along mountain slopes. Moreover climate change
is resulting in higher temperatures are also resulting increased incidents of wild fires putting cultural
heritage located in forested areas to greater risk than ever before.

Introduction

These hazards are adversely impacting peoples’ safety, livelihoods as well as values associatedwith cultural heritage. The increased vulnerability and exposure of cultural heritage to these climate
related hazards and potential scenarios will impact various typologies of cultural heritages in the
future. Critical challenges in integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction
are also experienced especially in the light of the existing international frameworks on disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation and their implications on national level policies. Therefore
there is urgent need of mainstreaming cultural heritage protection in wider policy, planning andinstitutional systems for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. Moreover disasterrisk reduction and climate change adaptation need to be integrated within existing site management
systems.
World is facing unprecedented rate of urbanization than ever before. Number of people living incities equaled those in villages in 2007 and is rising ever since. Such a fast pace of urbanizationaccompanied by densification, poorly constructed buildings and overburdened infrastructure isputting tremendous pressure on heritage sites especially those located in urban areas, thereby
increasing their vulnerability to hydro-meteorological hazards related to climate change.
In order to reduce these risks, appropriate mitigation and adaptation strategies need to be developed
taking into consideration the exposure to hazards and the heritage values. It is also important torecognize many examples of traditional knowledge evolved by communities through series of trials
and errors that demonstrate that cultural heritage can be an effective source of resilience against
climate change induced disaster risks and integrate these in disaster risk management strategies.
Considering these issues and challenges, the 11th International Training Course will give special
focus on the Protecting cultural heritage from risks of natural disasters including thoseinduced by climate change

13Flash floods in Himalayan Region, 2014

World Heritage Site of Ayutthaya in Thailand got inundated for weeks
due to 2011 Floods

Cloudburst in Leh region, India, 2010

Unprecedented heavy rainfall in Balkans in 2014 flooded many historic
towns and villages

Previous International Training Courses (2006-2015)
ITC 2006
In 2006, which was the first year for this course, eight participants from four countries were invited;
namely India and Pakistan, which were struck by a great earthquake in 2005 in Kashmir; Indonesia,
which suffered the Indian Ocean Tsunami triggered by the Sumatra Earthquake in 2004 and theEarthquake on the Javanese Island in 2004; and Korea, which had suffered a big forest fire.
ITC 2007
In 2007, R-DMUCH exchanged MOU with ICCROM and established a criterion for choosing
participants with the support of ICCROM. As a result, eight trainees from Bangladesh, China, Peru
and Philippines were invited for the training course.
Based on the experience of 2006 training course, it was decided to make closer relation between
the lectures, site visits and workshops. Therefore in 2007, several related sets of lectures were heldin the mornings and workshops in the afternoons. Based on these, discussions were facilitated by
the instructors so that the trainees were able to reflect more effectively on the challenges for cultural
heritage disaster management within their own context.
ITC 2008
The 2008 training course actively built upon the rich experience gathered during the courses heldin the previous two years. This year had participants from five countries from Asia and Europe,
namely Nepal, Bhutan, Iran, Serbia and Chinese Taipei. Effort was made to make this year’s course,
more field-based by drawing upon the unique opportunity offered by the location of important World
Heritage Sites in Kyoto such as Kiyomizu-dera and Ninna-ji temples. Most of the workshops were,
therefore, based on field work undertaken by the participants in these sites. This year’s course also
14

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

put greater emphasis on exposing the participants to the methodology for undertaking disasterrisk assessment for cultural heritage sites.
ITC 2009
The 2009 training course further evolved on the basis of rich feedback provided by the participantsof the training courses from previous years. In response to the need for making the course more
relevant to specific requirements and constraints of the developing countries, it was decided toorganize the course partly in Japan and partly in Nepal.
Moreover, for the first time, the training course had a specific theme, namely “Earthquake risk
management of Historic Urban Areas.” For this purpose, Kyoto and Kathmandu; two historic cities
with rich cultural heritage but extremely vulnerable to earthquakes, were chosen as the case study
sites for undertaking field exercises during the training course.
The first week of the course was organized in Japan and it focused on familiarizing the participants
with the basic methodology for risk assessment and management for cultural heritage properties.
The participants were shown various disaster prevention facilities developed for numerous cultural
heritage sites in Kyoto. Second week in Kathmandu focused on the earthquake vulnerability andcapacity of the World Heritage Monument Zone of Patan and its surrounding historic urban area,
both at building and area levels.
The UNESCO Chair programme intends to build upon the four years of very rich experience gained
through very active participation of lecturers from Japan and abroad, as well as the international
participants from various countries from Asia, Europe and the Caribbean and further enrich thecontents of the training course in subsequent years.
Introduction

ITC 2010
Fifth UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage2010 was held from 13 to 26 September 2010 in Kyoto, Kobe and Sasayama, Japan. In the lightof destructive Haiti earthquake on January 2010, this fifth International Training Course especially
focused on emergency response and long term recovery of wooden and masonry composite
Cultural Heritage from disasters. It was attended by 11 participants from 5 countries; Bhutan,
Palau, Peru, Serbia and Turkey.
On the final day of the course, the international symposium titled “How to protect Cultural Heritage from
Disaster; Risk Preparedness and Post Disaster Recovery” was organized by Ritsumeikan University
and the ICOMOS International Committee on Risk Preparedness (ICORP). In the symposium, thecurrent challenges for protection of cultural heritages taking into account the context of post disasterrecovery was discussed in great depth with international experts from UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICORP
and a representative of Kyo-o-Gokoku-ji Temple; World Cultural Heritage site in Kyoto.
ITC 2011
Sixth UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural
Heritage was held from 10 to 24 September 2011 in Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku area of East Japan.
In the light of increasing vulnerability of rapidly urbanizing settlements, the course focused on“Integrated Approach for Disaster Risk Mitigation of Historic Cities”. The course was attended
by 11 participants from 8 countries; Columbia, Jamaica, Kenya, Uganda, China, Mexico, India and
Bangladesh.
ITC 2012
Seventh International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage held during
September 2012 in Kyoto, Kobe and Tohoku area of East Japan focused on sustainable recovery ofcultural heritage. Accordingly the theme of the course was “From Recovery to Risk Reduction for
Sustainability of Historic Areas”.

15

ITC 2013
The theme of the 8th UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage was “Reducing Disaster Risks to Historic Urban Areas and Their Territorial
Settings through Mitigation”. The course focused on policies and planning measures for
mitigating risks to cultural heritage from multiple hazards such as earthquakes, floods, landslides
and fires, especially in rapidly urbanizing context of developing countries. Special techniques for
mitigating risks from earthquakes and fires were also highlighted besides policies, planning anddesign interventions for long term restoration and rehabilitation of cultural heritage following disasterthrough a special workshop in the area affected by the Great East Japan Disaster in 2011.
ITC 2014
One of the main reasons for extensive damage to cultural heritage is due to fires resulting fromnatural (bush/forest fires) or human induced causes (arson, chemical or bomb explosion, poor
electric wiring or during renovation works). Also fires can result from earthquakes as was the caseduring 1995 Great Hanshin Awaji earthquake in Japan. Considering these issues, the 9th UNESCO
Chair International Training Course on Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage focusedon ‘Protecting living cultural heritage from disaster risks due to fire’. Policies and planningmeasures for reducing fire risks to cultural heritage especially in rapidly urbanizing context ofdeveloping countries, special techniques for fire prevention and mitigation, emergency response as
well as interventions for long term restoration and rehabilitation of cultural heritage following disasterwere discussed during 2014 course.
ITC 2015
Earthquakes and floods cause immense damage to cultural heritage. Recently devastating
earthquakes in Nepal in 2015, 2013 earthquake in Philippines, North Italy earthquake of 2012 caused
vast damage to cultural heritage. Moreover 2014 floods in Balkan region, 2011 floods in Thailandand 2010 floods in Pakistan also caused damage to historic towns and archaeological sites such as
Ayutthaya. While vulnerability of cultural heritage to earthquake and floods is increasing more thanever before, there are many examples of traditional knowledge systems developed by communities
for mitigating against earthquakes and floods. Considering these issues and challenges the 10th
International Training Course focused on the protection of cultural heritage from earthquakes
and floods, and other associated hazards.
Organizers and Participants
The training course is organized from the beginning in cooperation with the UNESCO, ICCROM,
ICOMOS and relevant institutions of the government of Japan. In 2014, the Toyota Foundation“Initiative Program” has proposed to support our training course by providing the budget for three
years. Participants will include managers of cultural heritage, disaster risk management experts,
decision makers and government officials involved in cultural properties or disaster management.

16

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

Participants List of the Previous Training Courses
ITC 2006, the 1st year
No

1

2

3

4

6

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

Poonacha KODIRA INDIA

Director (Conservation),
Ministry of Tourism andCulture Archaeological
Survey of India

Anup KARANTH

INDIA

Project Coordinator,
Urban Earthquake
Vulnerability Reduction
Project, United Nations
Development Programme(UNDP) India

Sektiadi

Lecturer,
Dept. of Archaeology, Faculty
INDONSESIA of Culture Sciences, Gadjah
Mada University

Manggar AYUATI

Fauzia QURESHI

Hussain KHADIMDRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Qutb Minar and its
Monuments, Delhi, WHS

INDONESIA

Prambanan Temple
Supervisor of Rescue
Compounds, WHS and its
on Preservation Division,
Surrounding Environment
Dept. of Cultural and Tourism,
Center for Preservationof Cultural Heritage of
Yogyakarta Province

PAKISTAN

Head of the Departmentof Architecture,
National College of Arts,
LahorePAKISTAN

Coordinator,
Disaster Management Desk
RDPI,
Rural Development Policy
InstituteRohtas Fort, WHS

7

Seok JEONG

KOREA

Government employeeof Modern Construction Field,
Tangible Cultural Heritage
Bureau,Cultural Heritage
Historic Villages of Korea:
Administration,
Hahoe, WHS in Andong City
Republic of Korea

8

Woongju SHIN

KOREA

Concurrent Professor,
Dept. Interior Architecture,
Chosun College of Scienceand Technology

ITC 2007, the 2nd year
No

Name

1

A.K.M. Monowar
Hossain AKHAND

2

Md. Rafiqul ALAMCountryWork Position and Affiliation

BANGLADESH

Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
GOVT. of Bangladesh

BANGLADESH

Executive Director,
DWIP UNNAYAN SONGTHA(DUS)

Introduction

5

Name

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Lal Bagh Fort, Dhaka,Bangladesh

17

3

Shijun HE

P. R. CHINA

P. R. CHINA

Protection and Management
Bureau of World Cultural
Heritage Site - the Old Townof LijiangProtection and Management
Bureau of World Cultural
Heritage Site - the Old Townof Lijiang

4

Cuiyu HE

5Maria Del Carmen
PERU
CORRALES PEREZ

Instituto Nacional De Cultura
Architect of the conservation
and Restoration Sub Direction

6

Partricia Isabel
GIBU YAGUE

PERU

Chief of Laboratory ofStructures,Japan-Peru Center for
Earthquake Engineering
Research and Disaster
Mitigation

7

Glen
CONCEPCIONCity Disaster Action Officer
and City Environment &PHILIPPINES Natural Resources Officer,
City Government of Vigan

8

Eric QUADRA

PHILIPPINES Architect, LGU-Vigan City

ITC 2008, the 3rd year
No

1

18

Name

Choening DORJI

Country

BHUTANWork Position and Affiliation
Architect,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Home
& Cultural Affairs Royal
Government of Bhutan

2

Karma TENZIN

BHUTAN

Civil Engineer,
Tashichhodzong Maintenance
Division, Dzongkhag
Administration

3

Mahmoud NEJATI

IRAN

Deputy of Research &Technical Consultant,
Recovery Project of Bam’s
Cultural Heritage

Old Town of Lijiang , WHS

Historic Centre of Lima, WHS

Historic Town of Vigan, WHS

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Tashichho Dzong

Bam and its CulturalLandscape, WHS
Assistant Professor,
Department of Conservation,
Iran University of Science andTechnology

4

Fatemeh
MEHDIZADEHSARADJ

IRAN

5

Kai Ube Prasad

NEPAL

Architect,
Planners’ Alliance for the
Himalayan & Allied Regions

6

Suman Narsingh
RAJBHANDARI

NEPALAssistant Professor,
Nepal Engineering College

7

Ivana FILIPOVICSERBIA

Architect Conservationist,
Cultural Heritage Preservation Lower Town in Belgrade
Fortress
Institute of Belgrade

Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone in
Kathmandu Valley, WHS

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 20168

Shang Chia CHIOU TAIWAN

9

Shen Wen CHIENTAIWAN

Professor,
Department of Architecture
and Interior Design, National
Yunlin University of Science & Fort San Domingo in Tamsui
and Surround HistoricalTechnology
Buildings
Associate Professor,
Department of Fire Science,Central Police University

ITC 2009, the 4th year
No

1

Name

Rong YUCountryWork Position and Affiliation

P. R. CHINA

Lecturer, Wenhua College,
Huazhong University of
Science and Technology

P.R.CHINA

Researcher,
Tongji University, National
Historic Cities ResearchCenterArchitect,World Heritage Conservation
Section/Ministry of Culture
and State Restructuring,
Department of Archaeology

Yuan DING

3

Ramesh
THAPALIYANEPAL

Suresh Suras
SHRESTHA

NEPAL

Archaeological Officer,
Ministry of Culture and state
Restructuring, Department ofArchaeology

JAMAICA

Senior Director,
Office of Disaster
Preparedness andEmergency Management
Senior Archaeologist,
Jamaica National Heritage
Trust

4

5

Pauline BROWN

6

Audene BROOKSJAMAICA

7

Sergius CIOCANU

MOLDOVA

8

Valeria
SURUCEANU

MOLDOVA

Dujiangyan, WHS

Patan Durbar Square
Monument Zone in
Kathmandu Valley, WHS
Introduction

2

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Port Royal City

Head Scientific Researcher,
Institute of Cultural Heritageof the Academy of Science of
National Museum of Fine Arts
Moldova(Buildings and Collection)
Curator,National art Museum ofMoldova

Observers in the Kathmandu Part of the ITC 2009No
Name
CountryWork Position and Affiliation1

Keshab P.
SHRESTHA

NEPAL

Chief,
National History Museum

2

Punya Sagar
MARAHATTA

NEPAL

Lecturer,
IoE, Tribhuvan University

3

Ajay LAL
CHANDRANEPAL

Assistant Professor,
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, IoE

4

Gyanin RAI

NEPAL

Chief (Administration, Information &Public Relation Section),
Lumbini Development Trust

5

Inu PRADHANSALIKE

NEPAL

Lecturer,
Khwopa Engineering College
19

6

Saubhagya
PRADHNANGANEPALHead of Culture and Archaeology Unit,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office7

Chandra Shova
SHAKYANEPAL

Head of Heritage Section,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office8

Prabin SHRESTHA NEPAL

Head of Urban Development Division,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office

9

Ashok SHRESTHANEPALHead of Administration Division,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office

10 Sainik Raj SINGHNEPALHead of Earthquake Safety Section,
Lalitpur Sub Metropolitan City Office

ITC 2010, the 5th year
No

1

2

3

20

Name

DechenTSHERING

Junko MUKAI

Alexander G
DWIGHT

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

BHUTAN

Structural Engineer,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Home
& Cultural Affairs, Royal
Government of Bhutan

BHUTAN

Deputy Chief Conservation
Architect,
Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites, Department
of Culture, Ministry of Homeand Cultural Affairs, Royal
Government of Bhutan

PALAU

Director, Historical
Preservation Officer,
Bureau of Arts & Culture,
Ministry of Community &Cultural Affairs

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Wangduephodrang Dzong

Bai: Traditional Meeting
House

4

Sunny NGIRMANG PALAU

Palau National Registrar,
Bureau of Arts & Culture,
Palau Historic Preservation
Office5

TeresaVILCAPOMAHUAPAYAPERU

Professor, Sagrado Corazon
University

6

Olga Keiko
MENDOZASHIMADAPERUJSPS Research Fellow,
Graduate School of Science& Engineering, Ritsumeikan
University

7

Marilene
TERRONES DIAZ

PERU

Professor, Sagrado Corazon
University

8

MilicaGROZDANICSERBIA

Director,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

9

Svetlana
Dimitrijevic
MARKOVICSERBIA

Kosancicev Venac, Belgrade
Architect - Conservator Senior Associate,
Cultural Heritage Preservation
Institute of Belgrade

City of Cuzco, WHS

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

Zeynep10
GUL UNAL

11

MeltemVATAN KAPTANTURKEY

Assistant Professor, Dr.
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Architecture,
Restoration Department

TURKEY

Research Assistant, PhD
Student,
Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Architecture,
Structural Systems Division

ITC 2011, the 6th year
No

1

Name

Celina RINCON

Eskigediz Heritage Site

Work Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

COLOMBIA

Assessor for the Heritage
Director Office,Ministry of Culture

History center of Santa Cruzde Mompox, WHS

The Holy Trinity Cathedral

Country

Cheryl NICHOLSJAMAICA

3

Jose Ramon
PEREZ OCEJOMEXICO

Part-time Teacher,
Universidad de las Américas(Puebla, MEXICO)Colonial City Centre of
Puebla, WHS

4

Julius
MWAHUNGA

KENYA

Senior Cultural Officer,
Ministry of State for National
Heritage and Culture,
Department of Culture

Lamu Old Town, WHS

5

Remigius
KIGONGOUGANDA

Conservator Sites andMonuments/ Site Manager,
Kasubi Tombs, WHS
Department of Museums andMonuments

6

Janhwij SHARMA

INDIA

Director (Conservation andWorld Heritage),
Archaeological Survey ofIndia, Ministry of Culture

Taj Mahal, WHS

7

Md. Aamir Hussain BANGLASHIKDER
DESH

Urban Local Body
Coordinator,
Bangladesh Municipal
Development Fund (BMDF)

Historic Mosque City ofBagerhat, WHS

8Qing WEI

P. R. CHINA

Deputy Director,
Cultural Heritage
Conservation Center, THAD

Kulangsu

P. R. CHINAPhD Candidate,
Urban Design and Planning
Department, Norwegian
University of Science andTechnology (NTNU)

Taoping Qiang Village

CountryWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Secretary General,
ICOMOS PASIFIKA

Levuka Town, WHS

9

Yu WANGITC 2012, the 7th year
No

Name

1

Suzie YEE SHOW

FIJI

Introduction

2

Training Manager,
Office of Disaster
Preparedness andEmergency Management21

2Vikas LAKHANI

INDIASector Manager,
Gujarat State Disaster
Management Authority

Champaner - Pavagadh
Archaeological Park,
Panchamahal District,
Gujarat, WHS

Jongmyo Shrine, WHS

3Sang sun JO

KOREA

Research Associate andCurator,Heritage Repair Division,
Cultural Heritage
Administration of KOREA

4

Rosli
BIN HAJI NOR

MALAYSIA

Head of Melaka World
Heritage Office,Historic City of Melaka, WHS
Melaka World Heritage Office
Bagan located in Manadalay
Division, Myanmar

5

Ni LEI WIN

MYANMAR

Communications Officer at
World Concern Myanmar,
Relief, Recovery andDevelopment Project inMyanma6

Helen
McCRACKENNEWZEALAND

Policy Adviser - Heritage,
Ministry for Culture andHeritage

Cuba Street Historic Area,
Wellington

7

Usman SHAMIMPAKISTAN

Programme Officer,
Kuchlak Welfare Society(KWS)

Mehrgarh, lies on the "Kachi
plain" of now Balochistan,
Pakistan

8

PoornaYAHAMPATHSRI LANKA

Consultant- External Resource Person,
Disaster Risk Management &Climate Change for GIZ

Sacred City of Kandy,
Sri Lanka, WHS

9

Sibel
YILDIRIM ESEN

TURKEYConservation Architect,
Ministry of Culture andTourism

Agora Archeological Sitein the Historic City of Izmir

ObserversNo
NameCountryWork Position and Affiliation

1

Dong Seok KANG

KOREA

A Section Chief of GIS, Cultural Heritage Administration

2

Thi My Thi TONGVIET NAM

PhD Student, International Environmental and Disaster
Management Laboratory, Graduate School of Global
Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

ITC 2013, the 8th year
No

1

2

22

Name

Saleh Mohammad
SAMIT

Dian LAKSHMIPRATIWIWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

AFGHANISTANNational Manager,
Community Development
Programme
Aga Khan FoundationAfghanistan

Cultural Landscape andArchaeological Remains of
the Bamiyan Valley, WHS

INDONESIAHead of Archaeological
Section,Division of History,
Kotagede Heritage Area,
Archaeological and Museum,
Yogyakarta Historic City
Cultural Service Office,
Government of Yogyakarta
Special Territory

Country1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

Director,
Risk Management ResearchCenter(Associate Professor)
Risk Management ResearchCenter,International Institute ofEarthquake Engineering andSeismology

Golestan Palace, Tehran
Bazaar and their surrounding
old urban fabrics, Tehran

Kambod AMINIHOSSEINI

4

Barbara CARANZA ITALY

MEC srlMonumental Cemetery of
Italian Army “LIGURIA” ARMY
Staglieno, Genoa
MILITARY COMMAND

5

Paola MUSSINIITALY

Researcher,
SiTI-Instituto Superioresui Sistemi Territoriali perl’Innovazione

Portovenere, Cinque Terre,
and the lslands (Palmaria,Tino
and Tinetto), WHS

6Zaha AHMED

MALDIVES

Assistant Architect,
Heritage Department,
Male' Republic of Maldives

Laamu atoll Isdhoo Old Friday
mosque in Maldives

NEPAL

Advisor,
Urban Planning andInfrastructure Development,
GFA Consulting Group (Nepal
Office), on behalf of GIZ/
The city core area of Tansen
Nepal
Municipality
Municipal Support
Team, Ministry of Urban
Development, Department
of Urban Development andBuilding Construction

IRAN

7

Arjun KOIRALA

8

Kenechukwu Chudi
NIGERIAONUKWUBE

Director of Programs,
Development Education and
Sukur Cultural Landscape,
Advocacy
WHS
Resources Initiative for Africa(DEAR Africa)

9

Muhammad Juma
MUHAMMADTANZANIA

Director,
Urban and Rural Planning
Department of Urban and
Rural Planning

Stone Town of Zanzibar, WHS

THAILAND

Landscape Architect
Ministry of Culture, Fine Arts
Department,
Office of Architecture

Historic City of Ayutthaya,
WHSCountryWork Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Project Manager, Deputy
Head of Office, Cultural
Heritage without Borders(CHwB)

Gjirokastra, WHS

Hatthaya
10 SIRIPHATTHANAKUN

ITC 2014, the 9th year
No

Name

1

Elena MAMANIALBANIA

2

Catherine FORBES AUSTRALIA

Built Heritage Advisor, GML
The Rocks Historic Urban
Heritage; Australia Institute ofPrecinctArchitects, Australia ICOMOS

3

Sasa TKALEC

Head of Office of Director,
Croatian Conservation
Institute

CROATIA

Introduction

3

Castle Batthany in Ludbreg

23

4Juan Diego
BADILLO REYESECUADOR

Architect Conservator
freelance, Volunteer SouthAmerica Coordinator

San Antonio del Cerro Ricode Zaruma

Bab El-Wazir, El-Darb AlAhmar District, Historic Cairo,
WHS

5

Abdelhamid
SAYED

EGYPT

Chairman, Conservator in
the Ministry of Antiquities,
Egyptian Heritage Rescue
Foundation (EHRF); Training& Capacity Building UnitManager, Egyptian Earth
Construction Association(EECA)

6

Anaseini
KALOUGATA

THE FIJI
ISLANDS

Senior Project Officer Levuka,
Historical Port Town ofDepartment of National
Levuka, WHS
Heritage, Culture and Arts

7

Cinthia
CABALLEROHONDURAS

Urban control andplanification unit, Alcaldia
Municipal Del Distrito
Central (Gerencia Del Centro
Historico)Central District Historic Area

8

Jyoti PANDEYSHARMA

INDIA

Professor, Department ofArchitecture, Deenbandhu
Chhotu Ram University of
Science & Technology

Fatehpur Sikri, Agra District,
Uttar Pradesh, WHS

9Saut SAGALAINDONESIA

Senior Fellow, Resilience
Development Initiative

Gedung Sate Building,Governor office of West Java
Province

10 Alaa HAMDON

IRAQ

University Lecturer,
Researcher and Earthquake
Expert, Remote Sensing
Center, Mosul University

Al-Hadba Minaret and Nirgal
Gate / Mosul City

11 Richard NESTERNEWZEALAND

Technical Advisor – Historic,
Department of Conservation

Government Buildings
Historic Reserve

PAKISTAN

Regional Emergency
Officer (South Punjab),
Punjab Emergency Service(rescue1122), Emergency
Services Academy

Lahore Fort, WHS

13 Hussain SALEHSYRIA

Head of the scientificresearch commissions
department, Higher
Commission for Scientific
Research

Crac des Chevaliers (inArabic: Castle Alhsn), WHS

Kaichard
14 RUTTANAWONGCHAITHAILAND

Captain assistant, Klongtoey
fire station, second operation,
Vimanmek Palace, WHS
fire department, Bangkok
metropolitan

12 Zafar SHAH

ITC 2015, the 10th year
No

1

24

Name

Marcela
HURTADOSALDIASCountry

CHILE

Work Position and Affiliation

DRM Plans of Cultural
Heritage Formulated by theParticipants

Assistant professor,
Departamento deHistoric Centre of Valparaíso
Arquitectura,
Universidad Técnica Federico
Santa María

1.1 Background and Objectives of the 11th International Training Course 2016

GHANA

Assistant Conservator ofMonuments,
Ghana Museums andMonuments Board

Asante Traditional Buildings

Stephan DONA

HAITI

Disaster Risk Reduction
Advisor,Plan Consult

Citadelle, Sans Souci,
Ramiers

Mohamad Faruk
MUSTHAFA

INDIA

Chief Executive Officer,
RAPID RESPONSE

Mahabalipuram

Bam and its Culturallandscape2

Benjamin Kofi
AFAGBEGEE

3
4

Mohammad
RAVANKHAH

IRAN

6

Aurelio DUGONIITALYRegional Director of ANPAS
Sicily Committee,
National Association for
Public Assistance (ANPAS)

TArchaeological Area ofAgrigento

7

HisilaMANANDHAR

NEPAL

Urban planner,
Kathmandu Valley
Development Authority

Patan Durbar Square

8

Sonam LAMA

NEPAL

Assistant professor, Nepal
Enginnering College

Boudhanath Stupa andsurrounding area

9

Senior inspector, GeoIlse Anne Elisabeth
Engineering,
DE VENTNETHERLANDS
the Dutch State Supervisionof Mines

10

Bashar Ibrahim
HUSSEINIPALESTINE

Introduction

5

Teaching/research
assistant in Department ofEnvironmental Planning,
Ph.D. Candidate inInternational Graduate
School: Heritage Studies,
Brandenburg University ofTechnology Cottbus

Hogeland, Groningen,the Netherlands

Senior Project Architect &Fast Track Coordinator,
Welfare Association – Old City Old City of Jerusalemof Jerusalem Revitalization
Program “OCJRP”
The Sto. Niño Shrine andHeritage Museum,and the People’s Center andLibrary

Gerald Vallo
11
PARAGAS

Urban and Environmental
PHILIPPINES Planner (Licensed),
City Government of Tacloban

12 Marko ALEKSIĆSERBIA

Associate,
Central Institute forConservation in Belgrade

Serbian Orthodox Monastery
Žiča

13

amela Jane
MAC QUILKAN

SOUTH
AFRICA

Programme Officer,
The African World Heritage
Fund (AWHF)

Robben Island

14

WitiyaPITTUNGNAPOOTHAILAND

Lecturer,
Faculty of Architecture,
Naresuan University

Ban Pak Klong Village,
Bangrakham,
Phitsanulok Province,
Thailand15 Ngoc Phu PHAM

VIETNAM

Vice Director, Hoi An
center for Cultural
Heritage Management andConservation

Hoi An Ancient Town, Vietnam25

1.2 Timetable of International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk
Ritsumeikan University

26

Management of Cultural Heritage 2016, 11 th year,27

2 Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans
for Case Study Projects
by ITC2016 Participants2.1 Mohenjo Daro Archeological Site, Sindh Province,
District Larkana, Pakistan
Amna SHUJANational Disaster Management Authority, Pakistan

Fig. 1 Mohenjo Daro Archeological Site

1. Introduction

Mohenjo-Daro, 5,000 year old city is an excellent example of early town planning system, modern
urbanization and building techniques. The city is recognized as one of the most important cities ofSouth Asia and Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and referred as ‘An Ancient Indus Valley Metropolis’.
The archeological site of Mohenjo-Daro is a demonstration of Indus Valley Civilization and is on
UNESCO's list of the World Heritage sites.
Soon after its excavation in 1922, the structural remains at Mohenjo-Daro started to decay andcrumble due to salt drainage and thermal problems. Moreover, the continuous rise of ground water
caused salt laden moisture to move into the structure through the capillary action. Recently, the havoc
flood of 2010 in Pakistan caused a serious threat to these antique site of Indus Valley Civilization.
Floods in Pakistan is a common phenomenon every year and as this site lies near the Indus waterbasin, hence floods are constant vacillator and crucial to its ancient importance. This archeologicalsite is a portrayal of developed human civilization and town city planning which is worth seeing.
This paper focuses on the risks, mitigation measures, response and recovery mechanism for thearcheological site of Mohenjo Daro in case of disasters.

2. Background‘Mohenjo-Daro’ meaning “Mound of the Dead” was built by unbaked brick in the third millennium
BC. The reason of destruction of the city is unknown but the deterioration can be traced back inaround 1700 BC which buried many precious objects and lives, hence, posterity’s named it “Moundof the Dead” for its ruins. The ruins of Mohenjo-Daro had once been a center of ancient society. The
excavators divided the actual excavation into two main areas, east and west. The higher settlement
to the west has the ruins of ancient administrative buildings and some that were likely residences
for the elite.
Mohenjo-Daro is a proof of a remarkable ancient work showing the modern construction. It has aplanned layout based on a grid of streets, laid out in perfect patterns. According to Archeologists,
the city probably had around 35,000 residents. The buildings of the city had been constructedwith same-sized sun dried bricks of baked mud and wood and had advanced designs. The publicbuildings of the city also reflects a high degree of social system. Houses are opened only to inner30

2.1 Mohenjo Daro Archeological Site, Sindh Province, District Larkana, Pakistan

courtyards and smaller lanes. It has a 2.4 m deep 12m long, and 7m wide pool made by fine baked
waterproof mud and bricks with thick layer of tar named as Great bath, is associated with religious
bathing. The city is the perfect demonstration of urban plan included the world's first urban sanitation
systems. Some of the houses included rooms that seem to have been set aside for bathing, waste
water diverted to covered drains, which lined the major streets. Individual homes or groups of homes
obtained water from the system of well.

3. Outstanding Universal Value OUVOutline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

The Archeological site is at World Heritage List of UNESCO as per criterion ii and iii. However thedetermination of core and buffer zone of the site is not maintained yet but the process of core drillinghas been initiated in 2015. The OUV criteria for Mohenjo Daro is as following:
Criterion (ii): The Archaeological Ruins at Mohenjo-Daro comprise the most ancient planned cityon the Indian subcontinent, and exerted great influence on the subsequent urbanization of humansettlement in the Indian peninsular.
Criterion (iii): As the most ancient and best preserved urban ruin in the Indus Valley dating back to
the 3rd millennium BC, Mohenjo-Daro bears exceptional testimony to the Indus civilization.

4. Attributes and Values

The archeologist called it city of mounds mainly because the ancient city sits on elevated groundin the modern-day Larkana district of Sindh province. The site has famous attributes for instance
Granary, Assembly hall, Great Bath, Buddhist stupa, Priest King, College of Priest however for the
purpose of this case study three attributes has been selected i.e. Buddhist Stupa, Great Bath andArcheological Museum.

Fig. 2 Buddhist Stupa

Fig. 5 Archeological Museum

Fig. 3 Great BathFig. 4 Symbolic Value of Site

Fig. 6 Dancing Girl and Priest King

31

Table 1

Attributesof your Siteand their
S.No.
location(Refer Map)

Type of attribute(movable/
immovable,
Associatedtangible/
Valuesintangible,
natural/cultural/
mixed)

Great Bath•Immovable•Tangible•Cultural•Historical•Archeological•Symbolic2.

Buddhist
Stupa•Immovable•Tangible•Cultural•Historical•Archeological•Symbolic3.

•Immovable•Movable
Archeological artifacts•Tangible &Museumintangible•Cultural•Historical•Educational•Archeological•Socialcontext

1.

Qualifiers

Scores foreach Value
Stakeholders for 1(low),2(Medium),
Integrity Authenticity Sustainability these values3(High)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

5. Hazards and Vulnerabilities

Yes•Historians•Archeologists•Dept of
Antiquity•Community

•3
•3
•3
•2

Yes

•Historians•Archeologist•Dept of
Antiquity•Community

•3
•3
•3
•2

Yes

•Archeologist•Historians•Administrative
staff of musem•Community

•3
•3
•3
•2

The site has a historical background of hazards with respect to floods and earthquakes in nearby
areas. As the site is an excavated structure therefore it is fragile in its nature and can easily beaffected due to shaking of the land. The floods in the area is also a threat as Indus River passes near
the site and the 2010 flood of Pakistan affected the archeological site of Mohenjo daro. Moreover
weathering of the structure, salt drainage and raise in water table of the area are the environmental
hazards that are affecting the site.
Furthermore owing to its location which is close to the Indus River and the fertile land in and around,the spurs of human settlement is increasing on the World Heritage property. The excavated structure,
non-determination of core and buffer zone, weak coordination between federal and provincial
management and lack of implementation on the already formulated Master Plan aggravates thevulnerabilities of the site resulting in negative impacts on the archeological remains. The fig 7 shows
the probable hazard, vulnerabilities and the impacts they can threaten the site.

Fig. 7 Hazards, vulnerabilities and their probable impacts on the site32

2.1 Mohenjo Daro Archeological Site, Sindh Province, District Larkana, Pakistan

6. Risk Mitigation Strategy

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 8 Scenario of the case study of the archeological site

Keeping in view the past history of hazards in the area the above stated scenario of floods has been
selected for the purpose of this case study and consequently the mitigation plan is aligned to thescenario of flood.
i. Planning:P lanning In terms of planning following mitigation measures are suggested in order to reduce
the risk of damagea. Determination of core and buffer zoneb. Determination of elevated storage space for artifacts in museum where they can be placed
temporarily in case of floodc. Tree plantation along the river side can reduce the flow of damage of floods
d. The plantation of salt tolerant trees and grass in and around the site for controlling thedrifting of salte. Archeological Park near the site for revenue generation and visitors attraction
f. Data management system for artifacts in museum- this can be done through proper
documentation and prioritization of artifacts in the museum so that in case of disaster lostor damage articles can be traced.
g. Irrigation system (canals) to utilize the water for crops
ii. Infrastructure: In terms of infrastructure, the site can be protected by following measures.
a. Embankment along the river sideb. Rapid Sewerage system installationc. Improvement of traditional system by installation of new sewerage lines or maintenanceof old and checking the blockage. It is pertinent to mention that Mohenjo Daro was thefirst city to have the proper sewerage and drainage system. So the installation of new
sewerage lines or maintenance of old can be an efficient and adequate measure for
mitigating the risks.
d. T
 emporary flood walls/ barrier along the buffer zone of the site – on the call of early warning,33

temporary barriers can be installed along the buffer zone however this methods needs
due care because of sensitivity of the excavated siteiii. Policy: Following mitigation measure can reduce the risks associated to the sitea. Integration of DRM plan with the Cultural Heritage Conservation system and Master Planb. Formulation of guidelines on DRM of Cultural Heritage (CH)iv. Monitoring mechanism: A systematic and periodic monitoring mechanism can well identify
the loopholes in any action as well as ascertain the need of improvement so that a hazard
cannot turn into disaster. Following is required in terms of monitoring mechanism
a. Coordination among Federal and provincial governmentb. Systematic revenue collection mechanism
c. Monitoring the implementation of Antiquities Act 1975 – from threats of damage and new
development around the sited. Monitor the Flood Warning Systeme. Risk assessment of site & Museumv. Building and maintenance: For the maintenance of the site the already utilized technique i.e.
mud slurry is beneficial however the periodic maintenance of important attributes for instance
Buddhist stupa and Great Bath can mitigate the risks in case of disaster.
vi. Awareness of DRM of CH: For this media and public sensitization workshops can play its rolein order to highlight the importance of the DRM integration in Cultural heritage.

7. Emergency Response Measures

In case a flash flood occurs at the site, the first response measure must be deporting people to thesafe locality and afterwards protecting the site and artifacts. For this purpose firstly, the determinationof evacuation routes as well as indication of symbol/sign for evacuation at the site is required.
Secondly, on emergency call, placement of precious artifacts at the museum needs to be transferredto the elevated storage space by the trained staff of the museum. Thirdly, emergency equipment like
CCTVs inside the museum, fire extinguishers and emergency lights would be required for response
action in disaster. It is extremely essential to establish the coordination mechanism between the
response team and cultural heritage managers at the time of disaster, therefore, there must be a linkat district level with the Executive Board of Mohenjo daro so that the site is also protected timely.

8. Recovery Plan

Many post disaster recovery and reconstruction measures destroy significant components of cultural
heritage rather than protecting them. This signifies that recovery mechanism and reconstruction
must be in such a way that can reduce the risk and leads towards mitigation from disasters in future.
The first and foremost thing in terms of recovery of cultural or historical heritage is the adequate
damage assessment of the loss of site or artifacts. For this purpose, suitable ‘Damage Assessment
Form’ is required in order to assess and appropriately recover the loss.
In case of flood, firstly the structure of the site can be recovered by using the technique of Mud
slurry on the affected areas. Secondly for the damaged artifacts inside the museum, the adequate
step would be codification of damaged pieces with respect to their places in the Museum and theirmaintenance considering the integrity and authenticity of articles. And last but not the least would
be reconstruction or maintenance of Museum in such a way that it can resist the future hazards.

9. Conclusion

Like the way we preserve our ancestors treasure, cultural heritage has such sanctity and needs
protection. It is extremely essential to mitigate the risks of disasters which can result in the loss of
irreplaceable artistic and cultural assets. The paper aims to produce a disaster management plan
which is well integrated with the requirements of historical heritage of Mohenjo Daro. After thoroughanalysis of the archeological site and disaster management strategies, this plan is formulated for
mitigating risks associated to the World archeological site of Mohenjo Daro.
34

2.1 Mohenjo Daro Archeological Site, Sindh Province, District Larkana, Pakistan

References

1) Department of Archeology, Government of Pakistan: Periodic Report 2011 on archeological ruinsof Mohenjo daro.
2) Mohammad Rafique Mughal: Heritage preservation in Pakistan from national and international
perspectives, pp.18-19.
3) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/138
4) Report on the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission: the Archaeological Ruins ofMoenjodaro, 27 November to 4 December 2006.
5) Rohit Jigyasu, Integrated Framework for Cultural Heritage Risk Management, pp.1-3.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants352.2 Disaster Risk Analysis in Volubilis Roman Archaeological Site,
MoroccoMohamed ROUAI
Earth Science Department, Faculty of Sciences of Meknès, My Ismail University, Morocco

1. Introduction

Volubilis is the most important and famous Roman archaeological site in northern Morocco (Fig. 1).
Founded in the 3rd century BC, Volubilis holds fine monuments and beautiful Roman mosaics, andis classified as world cultural heritage by Unesco.
Volubilis is located 400m height on the south-western hillside of Jbel Zerhoun, with 10% averageslope, the most part of the city lies on Miocene marls, overlying calcareous Jurassic terranes(Faugeres, 1987).

Fig.1 View of Volubilis archaeological site

Despite it is the most preserved archaeological site in Morocco, it shows serious marks of soil
instability threatening some monuments and mosaics. In this study, we consider other kind ofhazards, particularly earthquakes, and we propose a disaster risk management analysis for thearchaeological site.

2. Attributes and Values

Volubilis was inscribed on the Unesco World Heritage List since 1997.The mean attributes of thesite are the Roman monuments and the precious open-air Roman mosaics, with high associatedarchaeological, historical and aesthetic values.
Fig. 2 summarizes the relation between these attributes, their values and the involved stakeholders.

Fig.2 Volubilis attributes and associated values362.2 Disaster Risk Analysis in Volubilis Roman Archaeological Site, Morocco

The site is administered by the ministry of Culture, research is mainly performed by the INSAP
as public institute and the conservation/restoration is carried out in the framework of international
cooperation with the support of the cited organisms.

3. Hazards and Vulnerability

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Volubilis archaeological site is under the threat of several hazards at different intensities. Here isconsidered the geological and atmospheric weathering, earthquakes, landslides and flooding.
Weathering is related to time and Roman mosaics are the most vulnerable attribute (Dekayir et al.,2003) that needs most protection. A shallow landslide (gravitational creep) was identified on theeastern quarter of the city (Rouai et al., 2015) related to clayey expansive soil and the topography.
Flooding is not to be completely neglected, especially in south-western part of the site due to vicinityof Oued Khoumane that threats the Islamic vestiges in this area.
The most expected hazard is earthquake; the site is located in an earthquake prone zone near active
geological faults. Even if the seismicity is moderate, an important seismic activity has been observed near
Volubilis by July 1987 reaching a magnitude 5 in Richter scale (Ramdani, 1991). The historical seismicity
catalogue (El Mrabet, 1991), and historical records indicate that the region have been completely
destroyed following the Great Lisbon 1755 earthquake and other important events during past centuries.

Fig. 3 Hazards, vulnerability, impacts and mitigation measures

3. Risk Mitigation Measures

There are many important prevention and mitigation measures that should be implemented atnational and local levels to reduce the above mentioned risks.
Suggested interventions are listed on Fig.3. A monitoring of the shallow landslide should be
implemented with consolidation of the ancient house walls to prevent ruin and mosaics damage. A
flood protection barrier is also needed to mitigate Oued Khoumane flooding in rainy seasons andflash floods. Anti-seismic measures seem to be urgent, particularly for tall monuments (Caracalla
arch, Basilicata, etc.) after a structural diagnosis.

37

4. Earthquake Scenario

After rainy days, a superficial earthquake will strike the area with a magnitude 6.1 on Richter scale, theepicenter is close to the site. Hundreds of deaths and around one thousand injuries on Moulay Idriss
city, few casualities and injured persons in Volubilis site. In this scenario, we expect destructions oftall monuments (Caracalla Arch, Basilica, and Forum) and important damage on Roman mosaics.
Rescue and relief do not arrive at time and we will show a big anarchy due mainly to lack of coordination
and bureaucraty (waiting for instructions from the prefecture and the central governement), theresponsabilities are not clear.
It is to notice the lack of knowledge to deal immediately with archaeological brocken materials.
Fortunately some trigerred landslides occure outside volubilis. As result, no touristic and economic
activities around the site for some time after the event.

5. Emergency Preparedness and Response

It is obvious that saving human lives is the first priority in the case of catastrophic event, and after
then dealing with cultural heritage.
We propose the evacuation paln on Fig. 4. The mean evacuation zone for tourists and workers
seems to be the southern gate for logistical reasons to evacuate injuried people towards Moulay
Idriss city (4 km) or Meknes city (26 Km). The local museum, if not destroyed during the event, could
be used as temporary shelters, but only after preventive and mitigation measures (anti-seismic
reinforcement, hydrants or underground water tank, smoke alarms, more extinguishers, etc.) andthe safeguarding of artifacts.
Temporary open air shelters : firstly near south gate, secondarily the Tingis gate.
The most vulnerable items are the highest monuments: Caracalla arch (9), Basilica (16) and Capitol(17), but also the Roman mosaics (NE part of the city).

Fig.4 Evacuation plan

The emergency management needs an efficient emergency team, headed by the curator/directorof Volubilis site. Such team should include representatives of civil society and the local authorty(Caidat).
38

2.2 Disaster Risk Analysis in Volubilis Roman Archaeological Site, Morocco

An emergency plan with high coordination is mandatory due to the multiplicity of actors (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Emergency management and actors

6. Recovery Planning

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

A recovery planning is presented on Fig. 6, showing situation analysis, on site survey and security/
stabilization.The collumns and heavy fallen structures should be stored in-situ and safeguarded if notcompletly destroyed (temporary storage). Roman mosaics could not be stored, only fragments to beinventored and stored. Local interventions are necessary to clean and protect mosaics for further
conservation. Recovery post-disater at short rerm consists of stengthen monuments and mosaics after
a full damage assessment, and a retrofiting and restauration at long term with a continous monitoring.

Fig.6 Recovery planning.

7. Conclusion

This case shows that disaster risk assessment is crucial and urgent for cultural heritage in Morocco
in general, and in Volubilis archaeological site in particular. A disaster risk management plan should
be enhanced and implemented. This imply, among others, the reinforcement of capacity building
and training of staff and actors following international procedures and rules.

Reference

1) Faugères, J. C.: Les rides sud-rifaines. Evolution sédimentaire et structurale d’un bassin atlanticomésogéen de la marge africaine, Doctorat d’Etat Thesis, Univ. Bordeaux 1, 480 p., 1987.
3) Dekayir, A., Amouric, M., Olives, J., Parron, C., Nadiri, A., Chergui, A. and El Hajraoui, A.: Structure
and characterization of the materials used in the building of Roman mosaics in Volubilis City
(Morocco). Geoscience, Vol. 336, 12, pp.1061-1070, 2004.
2) Rouai, M., Dekayir, A. and Qarqori, Kh: Geomorphological hazard in Volubilis archaeological site
(Morocco): XIX INQUA International Conference, Nagoya, Japan, 26 July-02 August, 2015.
3) Ramdani, M.: Etude sismotectonique du nord du Maroc, Doctorat d’Etat thesis, Univ. Oujda,
Morocco, p.250, 1991.
4) El Mrabet T.: La sismicité historique du Maroc, Doctorat 3eme cycle, Univ. Mohamed V-Rabat,
Morocco, p.370, 1991.

39

2.3 Tajín (Thunderlight Deity) Archaeological Site, México

Dulce Maria GRIMALDI SIERRA
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

1. Introduction

The Archaeological Site of Tajín (800-1200 a.C.) was the biggest and most outstanding pre-Hispaniccity close to the north coast of the Mexican Gulf (1). It is part of a broad area of 1220 hectares
that contains both important cultural and natural heritage, while the intangible heritage of the ritual
ceremony of Los Voladores (Flyers) is part of the traditions of the Totonaca people that live close by.
Tajín was inscribed in the World Heritage List in 1992, under criteria iii and iv, due to its “significanceas the best preserved and most thoroughly excavated example of a pre-Hispanic town from theperiod between the Teotihuacan and Mexico-Tenochtitlan empires. It is crucial to an understandingof artistic and socio-economic development in these intervening centuries”.

2. Heritage Value Assessment

The site contains around 200 constructions, 50 of which have already been excavated, including
17 ceremonial playing grounds “juegos de pelota”, as well as a site museum and storage areas.
Magnificent sandstone reliefs and wall paintings decorate the buildings constructed with aninnovated architectonic style within the Mesoamerican context. The outstanding construction Niches
Pyramid has been used as a regional and national symbol, while people that live near the site relay
on the economic opportunity of providing touristic services. The surrounding natural area houses
what is left of plants and wildlife native to this ecological zone, that live along with other species
introduced throughout the historic times.
ATTRIBUTESGroup of pre-Hispanic
buildings
Decorative elements(reliefs, wall painting,renderings, stucco
elements)
Museum objects andfragments collection
Storage areas collection
Surrounding
environment
Totonaca culture

VALUESarchitecturalarchaeologicalhistoric
technologicalaesthetic
social-identity
economic
environmental

Fig. 1 General view of the Archaeological Site of Tajín.

3. Disaster Risk Assessment

The exposed buildings, a site museum, and storage areas are located on an even morphology with
two water streams surrounding the area, while a remaining jungle and still uncovered buildings are
distributed on elevations of medium slopes up to 18°. The area has humid and warm climate, withplenty water supply and rain throughout the year, as well as an annual hurricane season. On theother hand, the increase in the urban settlement from two nearby cities, Poza Rica and Papantla,
has promoted the rural population to move closer to the archaeological site, and the land to be
used for cattle and animal raising, consequently deforestation. Finally, Poza Rica is an important city40

2.3 Tajín (Thunderlight Deity) Arcaeological Site, México

for petroleum industry whose infrastructure has as well invaded the surrounding areas generating
pollution, abandoned pipelines, and ground setting (2). A disaster scenario has been developed,
based on previous evidence, to analyze the probable disaster risk at Tajín.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 2 Palm leaves and wood shelter of Building 1

41

4. Disaster Risk Management

An integrated plan is required for an effective management of disasters in the site, which should
include all stakeholders and consider the socio-cultural characteristics of the region.

4.1 Mitigation

SC-INAH= Mexican culture agency, CENAPRED=Federal government agency for disaster management, VG=State government, MP= Papantla
municipality, COM= community members, SO= Shop owners, LO= Land owners, U=Universities422.3 Tajín (Thunderlight Deity) Arcaeological Site, México

4.2 Response
Strategy

Responsible

Transmit the alarm signal to the previously organized emergency-related
contacts and volunteers

SC-INAH

Cordon the area and take tourists through the evacuation path out of thearchaeological site to Papantla or other nearby town.

SC-INAH ＋
PTA ＋ OV ＋ MP

Fire department ＋
PTA ＋ OV

Set to work the fire control actions (fire-extinguishers and hydrants)

SC-INAH ＋ PTA

Protect glass windows and dome against protruded objects by wind
Make sure the drainage is working properly and block water from getting
inside the Museum and storage areas

SC-INAH ＋
PTA ＋ OVSC-INAH ＋
PTA ＋ OV ＋ U

Identify the objects that need to be taken to a temporary storage areafrom Museum or current storage areas (photograph, mark on inventory,
pack, and transport)

SC-INAH ＋
PTA ＋ OV

Provide accurate information to media and politicians

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Block water streams from getting closer to buildings and areas prone tolandslide

SC-INAH ＋
CENAPRED

SC-INAH= Mexican culture agency. CENAPRED=Federal government agency for disaster management, MP= Papantla municipality, PTA=previously
trained army personnel, OV= organized volunteers

4.3 Recovery Planning
Short term (3 months)

Medium term (1-3 years)

Long term (4 years ……)

Remove debris and fragments
and take them to storage areas

Improve preventive
conservation actions according
to DRM strategies SC-INAH

Revise DRM strategies on
management plan and install a
constant planning process
SC-INAH ＋ VG ＋ MP ＋ COM＋ SO ＋ LO ＋ PTA ＋ OVRaise awareness on disasters,
and disseminate attributes andvalues of the site among thecommunity and visitors
SC-INAH

SC-INAH ＋ PTA ＋ OV
Cordon insecure areas as toprevent visitors from being hurt
SC-INAH ＋ PTA ＋ OV
Install temporary shelters for
onsite buildings, storage andmuseum objects
SC-INAH ＋ PTA ＋ OVFast damage assessment ofbuildings and objects

Raise funds
SC-INAH ＋ VG ＋ MP+ SO
Improve touristic andcommercial infrastructure
VG ＋ MP ＋ SO
Build new shelter according tobuilding guidelines and DRM
strategies
SC-INAH ＋ U
Carry conservation treatment

Create a Monitoring Plan for
shelter and wall painting
SC-INAH
Worshops to prevent loosing
local construction traditions
SC-INAH ＋ MP ＋ COM

SC-INAH ＋ PTA ＋ OV
Clean drainage
SC-INAH ＋ PTA ＋ OVSC-INAH
Monitoring of drainage system
SC-INAH

Improve drainage system
according to DRM SC-INAH

Consolidate buildings close tolandslide areas SC-INAH

Negotiation and relocation ofland owners
SC-INAH ＋ VG ＋ MP ＋ COM

Permanent reforestation
campaign
VG＋ MP＋ COM＋ LO ＋SC-INAH

Responsible: SC-INAH= Mexican culture agency, VG=State government, MP= Papantla municipal government, COM= community, SO= Shop owners,
LO= Land owners, U=Universities, PTA=previously trained army personnel, OV= organized volunteers

References

1) Ladrón de Guevara, S.: El Tajín, La urbe que representa al orbe. Fondo de Cultura Económica yColegio de México, 2010.
2) Nahmad, D. et al.: Informe de los trabajos realizados en 2008 por el Proyecto Ordenamiento
Territorial para la Conservación de la ZMAET. INAH, 2009.
3) CNA-DOS.: Patrimonio Arqueológico Expuesto a Fenómenos Naturales. pp. 26-27, SEP-INAH.
4) http://www.orfis.gob.mx/informe2014/archivos/TOMO%20V/VOLUMEN%2010/011%20Papantla.pdf

43

2.4 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for a World Heritage
Site in Danger: Chan Chan Archaeological Zone in Trujillo, Peru
María Elena ALMÉSTAR URTEAGA
Department of Education and Culture / National Audit Office of Peru (Contraloría Generalde la República, CGR)

1. Introduction - Chan Chan Archaeological Zone

The Chan Chan Archaeological Zone is a national monument of 1414 hectares (5.5 miles) recognizes
by Peruvian government and managed by the Decentralized Directorate for Culture of La Libertad,coastal region located 345 miles north to Lima. This cultural property is situated in the city of Trujillo,
more specifically in Huanchaco district surrounded by the heavily populated areas of La Esperanza,
Victor Larco Herrera and Trujillo districts. It is managed by the Ministry of Culture through theSpecial Project of the Chan Chan Archaeological Complex - PECACH (“Proyecto Especial Complejo
Arqueológico Chanchan”, in Spanish).

Fig. 1 Map of Chan Chan Archaeological Zone and its 9 palaces (Photos: By the author, except for Google Maps image)

Chan Chan was the capital of the ancient Chimu Kingdom, a civilization that ruled the current Peruvian
Coast since 13th century and reached its apogee during the 15th, almost at the time when the Inka
Empire expanded its borders from Cusco highlands to the north dominating most of the Andean
territories. In 1986, Chan Chan Archaeological Zone was inscribed on UNESCO World Heritage
List based on Criteria (I) and (III). The World Heritage Center points out that “The Outstanding
Universal Value of Chan Chan resides in the extensive, hierarchically planned remains of thishuge city, including remnants of the industrial, agricultural and water management systems thatsustained it”1. The planning of the whole earth-architecture city is organized into nine 'citadels' or'palaces' which form independent units that were built in different chronological periods of the Chimu
442.4 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for a World Heritage Sitein Danger: Chan Chan Archaeological Zone in Trujillo, Peru

Kingdom’ development. Each Palace has its own inner spatial organization and hierarchy, showing ahigh expression of technical knowledge in earth architecture and symbolic designs (Fig. 1).
The World Heritage Committee, following a request from the Peruvian authorities and therecommendation of WHC Bureau, also decided in 1986 to inscribe the Chan Chan Archaeological
Zone on the List of World Heritage in Danger, making Chan Chan the second cultural property
inscribed in this List after Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (1982). At the time, the Committee“recommended that appropriate measures be taken for the conservation, restoration andmanagement of the site and specifically that the excavation work on the site be halted unless it was
accompanied by appropriate conservation measures and that all possible steps be taken to control
the plundering of the site2”.
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

2. Territory: Values and Attributes

Two important reports on the impacts of climate change —the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and the Stern Review on the Economics of
Climate Change (UK Government Economic Service)— place Peru as one of the countries that will
be most affected by the effects of climate change. The Stern Review also confirms that Peru is oneof the world’s most climate vulnerable countries.
Considering aspects related to its territorial features, the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone is locatedon a slightly sloped alluvial terrace that faces the Pacific Ocean. According to PLANDET, a projectby the Municipality of Trujillo, Chan Chan area is a geological alluvial deposit, hydro-geologically is
located in an area with unconsolidated aquifers, whose underground waters could increase its level
during every rainy season. Nowadays, it is surrounded by agricultural lands (especially in the Westand North-West) and consolidated urban areas (North-East and east like La Esperanza district).
However, the West side of Chan Chan is progressively changing from being mainly agricultural to
become an urban zone in a process of consolidation.
Following the OUV statement, Chan Chan could be understood as a cluster comprising of three main
attributes: Urban Planning, Emplacement and Construction Technique, each of them associatedwith values well recognized by national and the local authorities, academics, and local community,
just as described in the Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Attributes and Associated Values45

3. Disaster Risk Analysis

ITC 2016 provided us with methodological tools to assess the hazards and vulnerabilities of eachcase of study in order to understand and analyze different disaster risk scenarios. First of all, it isimportant to focus on two main recommendations stated by the WHC in its justification to inscribed
Chan Chan in WHL in Danger: 1) Excavation work on the site be halted unless it was accompanied
by appropriate conservation measures, and 2) all possible steps be taken to control the plunderingof the site. Each of them is associated with natural and human-induced hazards, respectively. Chan
Chan’s common natural hazards are heavy rainfall, salty winds, El Niño (ENSO). On the other hand,human-induced hazards consist of encroachment and the illegal occupation inside Chan Chan.
These threats allow us to be aware of Chan Chan’s main vulnerabilities. (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Disaster Risk Analysis

According to first WHC recommendation, from the 1414 hectares of Chan Chan’s global area, just19 Ha are open to visitors, which correspond to Nik-An Palace area (former “Tschudi Palace”) plus
the Site Museum area (Ministry of Culture, Chan Chan Master Plan). Nik-An Palace is nowadays awell-preserved Citadel with a permanent conservation program and protective infrastructure against
climate-environmental decay factors. Other Palaces have a preventive conservation action plan
based on monitoring and emergency measures, in order to avoid the impact of the main hazards on
Chan Chan; also, financial budget invested by national government could suffer a lack of income,which turns it difficult to start a new integral archaeological and conservation program in any other
Palace of Chan Chan.
Furthermore, in the case of Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, as well as many other archaeologicalsites in the northern coast of Peru, human-induced threats and hazards could be more frequentand consequently, more damaging than naturals or climatic hazards. In this context, it is relevant toknow that a group of families (some sources confirm there are almost 200 people) lived inside thearchaeological zone working on some sectors of Chan Chan with agricultural fields. (Especially thearea between the Pampas de Santa Maria (12), Ñing – An Palace (7) and Utzh – An Palace (9). Fig. 1.)

4. Emergency Preparedness and Response

Climate change has intensified the frequency and strength of the natural events which put in danger
the conservation and protection of Chan Chan. Between late 2014 and first months of 2015, the46

2.4 Formulating a Disaster Risk Management Plan for a World Heritage Sitein Danger: Chan Chan Archaeological Zone in Trujillo, Peru

Ministry of Culture of Peru developed “ENSO Program” invested approximately US $7 million in
53 archaeological sites along the coastal area; Chan-Chan was one of them, receiving almost US$600,000 for conservation and preventive measures. Therefore, a possible scenario of heavy rainfalls
in the context of an El Niño phenomenon could put to test those measures, affecting different sectorsof the Palaces, in an area of approximately 450 Ha., rain water could concentrate in the intricate
internal rooms of Chol An and Chayhuac An Palaces (nearby to Nik An Palace which has a recently
installed protective cover), causing floods and percolation in the earth constructions.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 4 Recovery Plan: short /mid/long-term measures

5. Conclusion and Pilot ProjectCurrent environmental and climate conditions increased by climate change predict highly damaging
effects against the conservation of Chan Chan Archaeological Zone. Despite of the efforts by the
Ministry of Culture and PECACH, it is important to note that many of the threats come from thesurrounding areas and from different governmental sectors that are beyond the scope of Ministryof Culture. The Buffer Zone main uses i.e. housing and agriculture, increase the challenge formanagement and conservation activities in the archaeological zone. This context is an urgent call tothe subnational governments that aim to establishing a territorial organization with a cultural focus in
the whole Trujillo/Huachaco/La Esperanza area.
As a Pilot project, an integral assessment of cultural values and social potentials are proposed in
Buffer zone of Chan Chan. It becomes necessary then to establish a Coordination Bureau comprisingof all the main stakeholders related to the conservation of Chan Chan and its territory.

References

1) World Heritage Center, website: Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (366) Description andOutstanding Universal Value http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/366
2) World Heritage Center, website: Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (366) Documents andJustification for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, 1986. Report of the 10th
Session of the Committee http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom86.htm#chan3) Ministry of Culture: Master Plan for the conservation and management of Chan Chan, 2000.
4) Municipality of Trujillo (Territorial Development Plan - PLANDET). Urban - Metropolitan Development
Plan 2012 - 2022.
5) Peru Climate Change: http://www.perusupportgroup.org.uk/peru-climate-change.html

Acknowledgments

To Maria Elena Córdova and Cesar Galvez of Chan Chan Archaeologial Project - PECACH, to myworkmates of CGR - National Audit Office (EDUS) and to my family.

47

2.5 The Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar,
Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H)
Nermina KATKIČ
Associate for Archaeology, Commission to Preserve National Monuments,
Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. Historical background and description

Fig. 1 The Old Bridge in Mostar (photo: Author)

The most significant period of development of the historic urban area of Mostar is Ottoman period,
16 century in particular, when the Old Bridge with its towers was built on the canyon of the Neretva
River, and the city was formed around it. This historic area consists of several important historicbuildings designated as a national monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the highest level oflegal protection in the country. The most important one is a remarkable masterpiece of the Old Bridge,
built as the one-arch stone structure with the span of around 28 m. Within the Bridge complex there
are also two monumental towers Tara and Halebija standing on the opposite sides of the Bridge,
the Herceguša tower, masjid and the buildings within the complex on the west bank. Inscribed area
covers 7,6 ha and besides the Bridge complex, one of the most important features of this Ottoman
historic centre is Čaršija (commercial centre) developed on both banks of the Neretva river creatingwith few mosques nucleus around which, the streets were formed and spread.

48

2.5 The Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H)

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 2 View on the Bridge (source: Author)

Fig. 3 Tara tower (source: Author)

Fig. 4 Halebija tower (source: Author)

Fig. 5 Map 1: Inscribed area with buffer zone

Fig. 6 Map2: The Old Bridge area of the Old City of Mostar

2. Understanding the context:

Living in the country that has faced heritage destruction of great proportions it is impossible not to,as an individual or as a group and with great care, approach to permanent conservation of what
has survived. The Old Bridge area in Mostar is among those which suffered the most experiencing
severe destruction having a large number of structures destroyed and ruined, and that is the main49

reason why this site has been chosen to be my case study. The Bridge, built in 1556 by mimar
Hayruddin, the student of the main Ottoman architect mimar Sinan was completly destroyed in
1993 by shelling. That stunning architectural jewel, iconic bridge collapsed into the Neretva river on
November 9, 1993. That day the world went silent.
The reconstruction of the bridge was supported by international community with respect to its
uniqueness and rarity, and symbolic value to the Mostar community. The reconstruction started
in 1997, under the patronage of UNESCO and was completed in 2004, when it was inscribed on
the UNESCO list. The official justification of the inscription of the Old Bridge Area of the Old City of
Mostar on the World Heritage List is: „With the “renaissance” of the Old Bridge and its surroundings,
the symbolic power and meaning of the City of Mostar - as an exceptional and universal symbolof coexistence of communities from diverse cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds - has been
reinforced and strengthened, underlining the unlimited efforts of human solidarity for peace andpowerful co-operation in the face of overwhelming catastrophes.”
The Old Bridge area was inscribed only under criteria (vi) because of its symbolic value and thememory of the site. It was recognized as an exceptional case, such as Auschwitz Concentration
Camp, the Island of Goree and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, all of which are symbols of humansuffering and yet the great strength and win.
The symbolic value of Mostar is kept annd cherished by the people of Mostar as well as entire Bosnia
and Herzegovina community. That is why they are the most important component for conservation as
the most important human legacy that was passed down over generation for the future.

Fig. 7 The Old Bridge, 1993 (source: https://aipetcher.
wordpress.com/2012/06/11/stari-most-bridgemostar/, Photo Studio HADŽIĆ Mostar)

3. Hazards, vulenrabilities and risks

Fig. 8 The Old Bridge, 2016 (photo: Author)

The Old Bridge area in Mostar faces number of hazards that could endanger and destroy its
irreplaceable cultural resources, but according to the research and data collected on hazards, twomain hazards have been proven to be primarily the most common as well as the most destructive:
earthquakes and floods.
Even today this site lacks the Risk Management plan. Analyses as well as defining threats and risks
for the area have never been done. Having in mind the destruction of this area during the war andregardless of the bridge reconstruction and restoration of the surrounding buildings this area ismore vulnerable to natural disasters.
What makes this area particularly vulnerable is the fact that in Bosnia and Herzegovina there isno institution for disaster risk management for cultural heritage as well as there is lack of effective
cooperation between Cultural Heritage institutions at different levels (state, entity, canton, local),unclear responsabilities for the Cultural Heritage protection and lack of cooperation between Cultural
Heritage institutions and Civil defence departments.
UN agencies have compiled a collection of hazard and risk maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina
developed by open source Geographic Information System (GIS) software relying on a combinationof country-specific datasets as well as best international scientific data. In the maps it is clearlyhighligted that for Mostar area the earthquake hazards as well as the flood risk is extremely high.
50

2.5 The Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H)

Earthquakes

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

The territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina is in active seismic region of South-East Europe. On theseismic intensity map of Bosnia and Herzegovina it is shown that Mostar lies in the zone 8th intensity
degrees according to European Macroseismic Scale. Although strong earthquakes haven notoccured in this region before, according to the map of expected earthquakes, done by Federal
Meteorological Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an earthquake up to 10 degrees can affectMostar in the next 100 years. An earthquake like that can destroy almost three quarters of housing
and other facilities and since most of the constructions are in stone-masonry, the stronger earthquakes
can cause substantial or heavy damages. Weak earthquakes measuring 2.5-4.5 degres frequantly
affect the Mostar area and they have already caused smaller cracks on the side arches and partof the intrados of the Old Bridge but without causing loss of stability. At its 32nd session, the World
Heritage Committee discussed the appearance of cracks on the Old Bridge, and requested from
Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue monitoring, collecting data with precise indicators and take theappropriate measures to ensure the stability of the width and grade of the bridge, in collaboration
with the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies.

Fig. 9 Map 3: Bosnia and Herzegovina Eartquake hazard map (source: www.reliefweb.int)

FloodsFig. 10 Map 4: Bosnia and Herzegovina Flood hazard map (source: www.reliefweb.int)

51

The Neretva river flows through the Old City and presents a potential danger for it. Heavy rainfalls
very often cause its raising to a dangerous level although the stability of the Neretva river depends
on synchronization of hydro power plants downstream and upstream of the bridge. The floods wererecorded almost every year. Increased level of Neretva floods terraces and buildings on the lower
levels of the riverbanks and rises to the arch of the bridge endangering the structure of the bridge.
Another river flooding every year is Radobolja river which flows into the Neretva on the right bank,very close to the Bridge and its few canals also flow through the Old city. The Radoblja river is not
regulated properly. Inadequate infrastructure, nonfunctional drainage system, disposed sewage inthe rivers increase the level of flood risk.

Fig. 11 Floods in Mostar 2010 (source: www.hercegovina.info)

The impact of the mentioned vulnerabilities may vary depending on the hazards intensity, which
may cause loss/damage of cultural heritage properties along with the loss of lives, damage ofinfrastructure and housing, decreasing the number of tourists, endanger public safety, contaminationof the area as well as health risks.

4. Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures needed to be implemented are grouped in several fields:
Institutional strengthening:・Establishing the Institute for Disaster risk management (DRM) for Cultural Heritage (CH) sites/
establishing department for CH protection in Civil protection institutions / establishing DRM
departments in CH institutions,・Improving the coordination between institutions (state/entity/canton/municipality)
・Establishing the cooperation between CH institutions and Civil protection sector
・Adopting the regulations at state level on responding to disasters - defining the responsibilities
・Improving communication and information exchange among all authorities
Capacity building
・Education of the CH experts in DRM field・Establishing the Emergency team for the site
Data collection
・Identifying the risks
・Collecting data from the previous disasters: Damage assesment reports, maps of the affectedareas
・Improving the information availability
・Surveying the site, analysing the structure conditions, analysing the material conditions
・Assessing structural stability of the bridge, proposing the measures
・Conducting a monthly reports on seismic activities and weather prognoses
・Developing detailed hazard maps for the area52

2.5 The Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H)

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Financial resorces
・Fund raising events
・Applying for International funds
・Engaging the local community in fund raising events
Regulation of rivers and infrastructure
・Improving the infrastructure
・Regulating of the Radobolja river・Imroving the road access/riverbanks
Local communities’ involvement:・Creating a volunteering network for disasters
・Organizing education for volunteers on response in time of emergencies
・Providing volunteers with basic equipment
・Trainings for volunteers on how to assess the damages after a disaster・Preparing the Damage assessment sheets for volunteers
・Involving the local communities linked to the site in planning activities
STAKEHOLDERS: national level: Commission to Preserve National Monuments, Ministry of Security,
Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Civil Affairs, National Commission for UNESCO, Armed forces; entity
level: Federal Institute for Protection of Monuments, Federal Department of Civil Protection, Civil
Service Agency; Agency Old Town Mostar, Civil protection department Mostar, Local communities,
Unesco Office in B&H, Touristic organisations, Nongovernment organisations, Owners of theproperties, UNDP, , Volunteers, Fire and police departments, UNESCO, ICOMOS.

5. Recovery Plan

Fig. 12 Emergency team - response on disaster scheme

53

Short Term
・Cleaning the streets for evacuation
・Identifying the evacuation routes and temporary evacuation zones
・Providing temporary shelters for people
・Cleaning the area, removing the debris from the streets and rivers
・Conducting damage assesment reports
Mid Term
・Creating emergency intervention plan
・Fundraising・Developing the restoration projects
Long Term Action Plan
・Restoration of the damaged buildings
・Raising awerness among people on importance of the heritage
・Involving local communities in planning activities and fundraising events・Ongoing fundraising

6. Conclusion

As it was noted in Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030, there is a needfor action in the four priority areas: 1: Understanding disaster risk, 2: Strengthening disasterrisk governance to manage disaster risk, 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, 4:Enhancing disaster readiness for effective response.
Natural disasters are a major threat to our cultural heritage and for its effective protection we
immediately need to start defining risks, exposure and vulnerability of the cultural heritage and toplan how to reduce it so we can prevent creation of new disaster risks. In Bosnia and Herzegovina it
is necessary to establish institute for disaster risk management of cultural heritage or include experts
from cultural heritage field into disaster risk management sector, adopt regulations and methodology
for disaster risk reduction and strengthen cooperation among institutions. Every interested party
needs to be involved in creation of Disaster Risk Managment Plan for the Mostar area and not toforget local communities and their importance and role in preservation of cultural heritage.

Reference:

1) Nomination file, The Old Bridge area of the Old City of Mostar, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/946
2) Hrasnica, M., Zlatar, M., Kulukucija, S., Humo, M., Madzarevic, M. : Seismic strengthening andrepair of typical stone masonry historical buildings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8Th International
Masonry Conference 2010 in Dresden, 2010
3) Cesari, C, Baratin, L., Jokilehto, J. : ICCROM-ICOMOS Mission to Mostar Report, Bosnia andHerzegovina, 2009.
4) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 – 2030, United Nations,
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
5) Report of Conservation of the Old Bridge Area of the Old City of Mostar_2008, Commission topreserve national monuments, 2008.
6) Decision to designate The architectural ensemble of the Old Bridge and towers in Mostar as anational monument of Bosnia and Herzegovina (www.kons.gov.ba).
7) Decision to designate The historic urban area of Mostar as a national monument of Bosnia andHerzegovina (www.kons.gov.ba).
8) South Eastern Europe Disaster Risk Mitigation and Adaptation Programme: The Structure, Roleand Mandate of Civil Protection in Disaster Risk Reduction for South Eastern Europe, http://www.
unisdr.org/files/9346_Europe.pdf

54

2.6 FORTIFICATIONS on THE CARIBBEAN SIDE of PANAMA: PORTOBELO-SAN LORENZO,
by Alberto Enrique PASCUAL, from Panama

2.6 Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama:
Portobelo-San Lorenzo, Panama
Alberto Enrique PASCUAL
Director at Fundación CoMunidad, Panama

1. Introduction

It is a priority to address Disaster Risk Management of Fortifications on the Caribbean Side ofPanama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo, environmental factors, lack of maintenance and uncontrollable
urban developments have been cited as reasons to inscribe UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in
Danger in year of 2012. The ensemble monumental of Portobello-San Lorenzo, have key features
to integrate and implement mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change and risk
management to protect the cultural heritage, as an exceptional variety of habitat from an urban
center to protected areas in which can be found different ecosystems in this heritage site: coral
reefs, mangroves, tropical forests and mountains, further developing the link that must be between
cultural and natural.

2. Attributes and values / OUVThe component parts of the property represent characteristic examples of military architecturedeveloped by the Spanish Empire in its New World territories largely between the 17th and the 18th
centuries. As a whole, these structures comprised a defensive line to protect Portobelo’s harbour
and the mouth of the Chagres River, which were the Caribbean terminals of the transcontinental routeacross the Isthmus of Panama. The defensive system includes fortifications in different styles, someof them skilfully integrated into the natural landscape as part of its military defensive design. They
were also adapted to the changing needs of defensive technologies in the course of three centuries
in order to protect the capital resources sent from colonial America to Spain after crossing theIsthmus of Panama. In the earliest constructions, a military style with mediaeval features prevailed,while in the eighteenth century the structures were rebuilt in the neo-classical style, which can beobserved at the forts of Santiago, San Jeronimo and San Fernando, and also at San Lorenzo. The
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo- San Lorenzo was inscribed on the World
Heritage List under criterion (i): The Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: PortobeloSan Lorenzo are a masterpiece of human creative genius. Portobelo is a remarkable example of anopen fortified town, destroyed and built several times. San Lorenzo underwent the same process ofrenovations along the colonial era. Criterion (iv): The Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama:
Portobelo-San Lorenzo, a group of late 16th, 17th and 18th century fortifications, are among themost characteristic adaptations of Spanish military architecture to tropical climate and landscapefeatures, and represent the structural and technological development of military structures in the
Caribbean.

55

Fig. 1 Fort San Lorenzo in the province of Colon Panama

3. Natural disasters / hazard, mitigation, vulnerabilities and stakeholders
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo
Vulnerability
Planning

Lack ofManagement
Plans toPortobelo-San
Lorenzo

Mitigation
UpdateManagement
Plan from 2002 of
San Lorenzo anddevelop new MP for
Portobelo

Hazards

Stakeholders

FloodsLocal population

Landslide

Institute of Culture
Ministry ofEnvironmental
Civil Protection
Local Government

Lack of Distric
Terriorial Plan for
Historic Town of
Portobelo

Approval and
Implementationof DTP
developed 2012

Encoachments
And Urban Presure

Local population
Institute of Culture

Floods
Ministry of Housing
Landslide
Civil Protection
Local Government

Physical

56

Lack ofmaintenance andlimited conservation

Implementationof the Strategic
Plan 2016-2019 forPortobelo and San
Lorenzo

FloodsLocal population

Landslide

Institute of Culture
Local Government

2.6 Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo, Panama

4. Mitigation strategie

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

The District Territorial Plan has been structured at three levels to to differ each one as for the
managing of the zones and areas of territorial classification. The first level corresponds to the offer ofterritorial classification of the district, the second one to the Historical Monuments set, and the thirdpart to Portobelo's Historical Center.
The First Part. Conceptual Model
It is orientated towards the search of the harmony between place, form and public spaces. The
model seeks to guarantee a balance between the protected area constituted by the Portobelo
National Park, the Historical Monuments Set, Portobelo's Historical Center, the constructed space
and the free current space.
The second Part. Normative and Territorial Classification Offer
Territorial Classification Offer was determined from the structure of the territory at three levels ofagreement; the identification and location of the principal elements that allow to organize and toclassify the territory for its better utilization; the organization of the urban and rural space as forfunction and habitability, bearing in mind the existence of the National Park and the Historical
Monuments Set.
Third Part. Vial Traffic offer.

5. Evacuation Plan

Fig. 2 Map of Historic Town of Portobelo

57

The historical urban center of Portobelo where the largest population is concentrated is located in avulnerable site between the Portobelo Bay and the Portobelo National Park. The only place possible
place to establish shelter and emergency services is located the New Urban Expansion área.
Emergency Team would consist of: Police, National Air Service, Fire Department, Red Cross, Civil
Protection, Maritime Authority, Ministry of Environmental, Tourism Authority, Ministry of Health andthe Emergency System 911.

6. Conclusion

The Disaster Risk Management Plan focused on the Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama:
Portobelo-San Lorenzo, should be a priority because it is the only UNESCO World Heritage ofthe country, which is included in the Danger List and the implementation of DRMP, will contributesignificantly to the efforts to conserve this heritage site, to take action will be necessary to developa joint strategy with all the revalantes stakeholders.

Reference

1) MENA GARCÍA, Mª CARMEN: La ciudad en un cruce de caminos (Panamá y sus orígenes
urbanos), Sevilla: Escuela de Estudios Hispanoamericanos, 1992.
2) Castillero Calvo, Alfredo: Portobelo: apuntes para un libro en preparación, Revista patrimonio
histórico. Vol. 2, No. 1 (oct., dic. 1978). Instituto Nacional de Cultura. Dirección del Patrimonio,
Panamá, 1978.
3) Castillero Calvo, Alfredo: Arquitectura y sociedad: la vivienda colonial en Panamá, Revista
Humanidades, 3ª. Época, No. 1 (Dic. 1993), Universidad de Panamá, Facultad de Humanidades,
Panamá, 1993.
4) Araúz Monfante, Celestino Andrés: El contrabando en el istmo de Panamá y la Nueva Granada,
una de las causas del colapso de las ferias en Tierra Firme, Revista cultural Lotería, Nos. 342-343(sept.-oct. 1984). Lotería Nacional de Beneficencia, Panamá, 1984.
5) Berrío Lemm, Vladimir: Joyas del pasado: San Felipe de Portobelo, Revista cultural Lotería. Nos.
464-465 (ene.-abr. 2006). Lotería Nacional de Beneficencia, Panamá, 2006.

58

2.7 Mombasa Old Town, Kenya

Fatma Said TWAHIR
Architect: Antiquities, Sites and Monuments; National Museums of Kenya, Mombasa

1. Introduction

Mombasa County is the country’s second largest city and is comprised of the island / CBD, north,west and south mainland. Mombasa Island is the core of urban growth in the county and has
experienced immense pressure from population growth within unsustained infrastructure. The Old
Town, the origin of Mombasa, is within a larger modern city affected by rapid urbanisation, shifting
economic activities and rising costs of urban land. This rapid growth has had to be accommodated
in a static physical character with inadequate and degenerated infrastructure amidst uncertainties
of climate change effects.

Fig. 1 Location of Mombasa Old Town

59

2. Heritage Values

The gazette Mombasa Old Town Conservation Area is part of the Old Town located on the south westof Mombasa Island and the buffer zone for Fort Jesus World Heritage site. Its extents corresponding
to the old walled 16th century Portuguese town with an addition of Piggot Place, Treasury Squareand Fort Jesus; all public open social spaces. It was said to be the centre of activity (Fort, harbour
and the stone town) for Mombasa between the late sixteenth and early twentieth century with 2
main commercial streets currently accommodating tourism supporting functions. The conservation
area consists of 774 plots covering approximately 31ha. It has been surveyed, a management plan
adopted in July 1990 and a pilot project undertaken in which buildings identified with architectural
significance were restored in order to showcase the possibility of incorporating modern needs into
old structures.

Fig. 2 Fort Jesus World Heritage site

Fig. 3 Old Post Office at Government square

3. Climate Change, Hazards and Vulnerabilities

Coastal regions; where the Old Town is located; are vulnerable to climate change because of their
low altitude, high temperatures and intense rainfall. They will be impacted by sea-level rise, salt water
intrusion into ground water resources, flooding, sedimentation, prolonged droughts and elevated
CO2 levels. For instance, the high precipitation experienced has caused massive sedimentationand flooding in mangrove forests leading to die-back in many areas. Climate-related disasters areprojected to increase in frequency and intensity with long-term climate change. Unfortunately, otherthan coral reefs, not much has been done in assessing the impacts of climate change on heritage.
Vulnerabilities to intense rainfall within the Old town include:(1) Physical/Age: Historic buildings were made of coral blocks, mud mortar, lime based plasterand iron sheets roofing. This makes them porous; soaking in stagnant storm water leading tocondensation, damp, mould and increased decay hence weakening their structural stability.
The walls were load bearing with no additional reinforcement. The narrow roads on the other
hand make fire engines inaccessible to pump out stagnated water and send in response
teams to evacuate people during disasters. Other modern interventions like tarmacking theroads with asphalt makes the storm water more impermeable to ground infiltration.

(2) Environmental: The Old Town is located at the edge of the coastline with a low altitude of 10-24m. It experiences a progressive increase in coastal erosion; 2.5-20cm/year. (Mwakumanya).
Storm water is also discharged into the sea and an anticipated sea level increase is of 1.1mm/
year due to climate change may make this challenging.
(3) Institutional: The Island has experienced uncontrolled urbanization/ growth leading to highdensities and shortage of piped water hence reliance on ground water that may result in60

2.7 Mombasa Old Town, Kenya

lowering of the landmass. Ineffective garbage collection has amounted to blocked storm waterdrains. Institutions/ stakeholders have no co-ordinated disaster risk management plan, withno relation between research institutions and city management. Heritage managers and theirlegislation have no implementation mechanisms hence most historic buildings are not wellmaintained.
(4) Socio-economics: The poverty levels within the Old Town have brought about increase invandalism of drain covers, dust bins and the lack of concern about the garbage management.
Therefore when rainfall becomes intense; which is annually; the following disasters are predicted:
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

4. Mitigation strategy

The Mombasa Old Town mitigation strategy requires integrating the stakeholders with variable
strengths and local networks for possible partnerships and co-operations.

This mitigation strategy has highlighted the strengths of some long standing heritage buildings;
continually being used by local and international community; as places of refuge hence increasing
their intrinsic values.

5. Emergency Response Preparedness

Emergency response would be under the management of a registered Disaster Risk Management
Committee (DRMC) comprising of a co-coordinator and all the identified stakeholders. It would
involve:・Strategic Planning: Identification of the team and its gazettement/ registration comprisingof DRMC + Community. They should then campaign for financing logistics, regular meetingsand drills, establish tactic and evacuation routes, supplies route/ helpers route, operational
refuge areas- Fort Jesus area/ Portuguese church and identification of response team (youth
groupings/ tour guides) on the ground.
・Mobilisation: allocate responsibilities like the DRMC to facilitate radio communication, Red
Cross- medical equipment, Mombasa Club- refreshments, Mombasa County- temporary sheltersand safety gear, Community police- rescue manpower, NMK- bags/ stationary/ photography,

61

KPA- machinery and the Police handling the general security
・Operations: it would be initiated by an alarm / media (radio) announcements; evacuation
with guidance from trained community youth, Red cross offering medical assistance, Fire
department/ civil engineering with NMK undertaking condition assessment and salvaging.
・Handing over: this would include site clearance and heaping by waste types, its disposal,
shelter dismantling, return of equipment and photography for documentation.
・Reporting: DRMC to compile comprehensive report having the location of the disaster, time,area affected, physical destruction, actions taken, resources used and challenges. Lessons
learnt in these reports would be used to improve the disaster management strategies.
Once emergencies have been averted, preparation should be done for recovery.

6. Recovery Plan

In order for the disaster site to go back to normal, recovery needs to be done; starting with damage
assessment, short term recovery and long term resilience creation.

7. Conclusion

When mitigation actions are implemented, the community would have restored buildings, upgradedinfrastructure and improved service delivery hence improved resilience to disasters through youth
empowerment and conserved heritage and marine environment.

References

1) Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd,New Delhi, India in association with
GEODEV (K) LTD, Nairobi, Kenya and OtienoOdongo& Partners, Kenya; Integrated Strategic
Urban Development Plan for Mombasa Town 2035; October 2015.
2) UNDP and UNESCO consultants Joseph King and Donatella Procesi; Conservation Plan for the
Old Town of Mombasa Kenya; July 1990.
3) Cynthia Brenda Awuor, Victor Ayo OrindiAnd Andrew OchiengAdwera. Climate change andcoastal cities: the case of Mombasa, Kenya, 2008.

62

2.8 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines:
The Case of the Historic Town of Vigan
Sherwynne Bagoisan AGUB
Legislative Staff Officer IV, Senate Economic Planning Office, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Philippines

1. Cultural Heritage Profile

Established in the 16th century, the historic town of Vigan in the Philippines is a good example of awell- planned Spanish colonial town in Asia. Its architecture reflects the coming together of various
cultural elements from the Philippines, China and Europe, resulting in a townscape that is unique andunparalleled anywhere in East and Southeast Asia.
An important trading post before the colonial era, Vigan is located at the river delta of Abra River, along
the northwestern coastline of the main island of Luzon, in the Province of Ilocos Sur.. The total area of
the inscribed property is 17.25 hectares. The traditional hispanic checkerboard street plan opens up
into two adjacent plazas. The Plaza Salcedo is the longer arm of an L-shaped open space while thePlaza Burgos is the shorter. The two plazas are dominated by the St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Archbishop’s
Palace, the City Hall and the Provincial Capitol Building . The urban plan of the town closely conforms
to the Renaissance grid plan specified in the Ley de la Indias for all new towns in the Spanish Empire.

2. Socioeconomic and Demographic Profile

Being the capital of Ilocos Sur , Vigan is the center of the province’s politics, commerce, education andreligion. It is where most regional offices of the national government’s line agencies are located andwhere people go to receive secondary and tertiary hospital care. Being a commercial center since
the Spanish period, traders from municipalities all over Ilocos still go to Vigan to buy and sell goods.

Fig. 1

The city has a 5th class classification and has received many regional awards for its city governmentimplemented projects. The local government aims to continue to keep Vigan the leading municipalityof Ilocos Sur, which could be accomplished by instilling in the minds of the locals the value and pride ofVigan’s culture, conserving and protecting Vigan’s heritage and environment, delivering high-standard
social services as well as programs for poverty alleviation. The city’s local authority plans to do all ofthese with the participation of the community, empowering the residents in the process. The people ofVigan are known to be extremely industrious, prudent and hospitable. Visitors will not encounter any
problems communicating with the locals as they know how to converse in English and Filipino. Theirlocal dialiect is called Ilocano, which is also how the people of the Ilocos region are called. As 2015,
the population of Vigan reached 53,879 people.

63

3. Vigan Tourist Arrivals

When Vigan made it to the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1999, it was dubbed the "best-preserved
example of a planned Spanish colonial town in Asia.” Thereafter, tourism consistently increased. In
2014, Vigan was named one of the New 7 Wonders Cities. As a result, tourism further increased. Data
from the City Tourism Office shows a total of 752,074 guest arrivals in 2015 – an almost 30 percent
increase from the 580,381 guests in 2014.
Table 1

4. Attributes and Associated Values

The historic town of Vigan was inscribed in the World Heritage List under Criterion (ii): Vigan represents
a unique fusion of Asian building design and construction with European colonial architecture
and planning; and Criterion (iv): Vigan is an exceptionally intact and well-preserved example of aEuropean trading town in East and Southeast Asia. These qualities are linked to tangible and intangible
components in the site such as monuments, public and private houses, churches, open spaces andcultural & spiritual activities.

Fig. 2

5. Natural Disasters/Hazards and Vulnerabilities

Vigan is located in the northern part of Luzon, one of the Philippines’ main islands. Due to its proximity
to the open South China Sea, it is very vulnerable to typhoons originating from the west. And being
situated in a country located in the Pacific Ring of Fire, it is highly prone to earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, and typhoons and flooding.

642.8 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines: The Case of the Historic Town of Vigan

In the event of a natural disaster, a secondary hazard may also take place, such as an earthquake that
leads to fire and typhoon that leads to flood. Below is a sample scenario of two sequential hazards
with their combined impacts. When earthquake occurs, a subsequent fire is expected to break out inthe heritage site due to possible fire sparks arising from electrical wiring disruption and falling debris.
Expected impacts include loss of life, injury, loss of livelihoods, disruption of economic activities, lossof local income, collapse and burning of historical buildings, structural damages and disruption of site
cultural activities. These impacts can be attributed to the following vulnerabilities: a) site is surroundedby volcanoes; b) houses are attached and many are made of wooden materials; c) nearly 50 percentof the structures are in mediocre to poor conditions; d) no dedicated disaster management plan; e)lack of maintenance; f) limited fire extinguishers and hydrants; and g) lack of firefighting system.
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 3

6. Proposed Mitigation Measures

To mitigate the impact of earthquake and fire as well as other natural disasters, the following measures
are proposed. On the legislation aspect, it is proposed that a Fire Safety Act be passed for cultural
heritage sites. A disaster management budget for cultural heritage sites is also warranted for astanding fund that would be readily tapped in the event of a natural disaster. On the institutional
aspect, there should be a disaster management plan for each hazard for cultural heritage site.
Disaster risk management should also be integrated in urban and development plan in the locality.
On the organizational aspect, there is a need to establish a staff structure with clear and defined
responsibilities in disaster management. On the technical aspect, a disaster management protocol
should be established as to who should respond first and what agencies to coordinate with to avoid
confusion and finger pointing. Moreover, there is a need to regularly monitor fire safety systems; identify
sources of ignition that should be eliminated or minimized; coat or apply houses with liquid hydrants;
require each house to have at least one fire extinguisher; and increase number of hydrants.

65

Fig.4

7. Emergency Preparedness and Response

Fig.5

66

2.8 Disaster Risk Management of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines: The Case of the Historic Town of Vigan

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 6

References

1) City Government of Vigan: Fourth City Council Appropriation Ordinance No. 06, Series of 2011,
2012.
2) City Government of Vigan: State of the Children Report 2013, 2014.
3) Department of the Interior and Local Government: Local Governance Performance Management
System, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpmsv2/cmshome/4) Historic City of Vigan: Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/502
5) Saluad Vigan: Empowering and Protecting Bigueños in times of Disasters. Retrieved fromhttps://www.unicef.org/philippines/COPCFLG-ViganCity.pdf
6) Vigan Tourism Office: Number of Tourist Arrivals.
7) Vigan Spanish Houses: Retrieved from http://www.vigan.ph/heritage/vigan-spanish-houses.html
8) Villalon, A. : The Nomination Dossier for the Historic Town of Vigan, 1999.

67

2.9 Disaster Risk Management Planning for Heritage in New Zealand:
Case Study Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area, Wellington
Vanessa TANNER
Wellington City Council, New Zealand

1. Introduction

Disaster risk management of cultural heritage in New Zealand was characterized by a lack ofcommunication and coordination between agencies responsible for cultural heritage and those for
emergency response. Following the 2010 and 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and the significant lossof heritage that occurred as a result of the initial response to that event, changes are being enacted
to enable greater consideration to be given to heritage in the initial response period after a disaster.
A review of the response to our current earthquake, Kaikoura 14 November 2016 magnitude 7.8 andcontinuing aftershocks (response currently underway), which has devastated parts of the northern
South Island and significantly affected the operation of Wellington’s central city will shed light on any
progress made in our integrated response to disaster risk management of cultural heritage.
The Capital of New Zealand, Wellington is located in a zone of high seismic activity and another major
earthquake is an ever-present threat in our planning for cultural heritage protection. In response to
the Christchurch earthquakes 2010 and 2011 new regulation for shortening timeframes within which
owners must seismically strengthen their buildings will be enacted in 2017, this affects a numberof Wellington’s heritage buildings including those in case study Newtown Heritage Area. Figure 1
illustrates both tectonic plates, the proposed new zones for seismically strengthening and the locationof Wellington relative to these.
Wellington’s settlement and cultural heritage places are primarily situated around the city’s harborand our volatile south coast, increased storm events and sea level rise also threaten the future of ourcultural heritage places.

Fig.1 Map illustrating tectonic plates and the location of Wellington (Source: sciblogs.co.nz) and an illustration of the
proposed new risk zones for seismically strengthening buildings (Source: www.behive.govt.nz/release/moretargeted-approach-earthquake-prone-buildings)

682.9 Disaster Risk Management Planning for Heritage in New Zealand:
Case Study Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area, Wellington

2. Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area Heritage Values

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area lies at the heart of one of the most distinctive and best knownof Wellington’s suburbs. A product of Wellington’s late 19th and early 20th century expansion into its
suburban margins, Newtown was the largest and most significant of the city’s inner-city suburbs. It
played a crucial role in accommodating both those abandoning the more densly populated inner city
and also the successive waves of immigrants. It is perhaps the city’s best example of the importance oftransport development in expanding the city’s boundaries. Collectively, the buildings have high overallarchitectural value; while the majority of buildings are modest and unpretentious commercial structures,
they are well-designed and good representative examples of their kinds. In a city where lengthy
streetscapes of older buildings are rare, the blocks of buildings along Riddiford Street in particular areof singular significance to Wellington (Figure 2). The shopping area has historically played a key rolein ensuring the cohesiveness of the community, this continues today and is celebrated in Wellingtons
largest annual street festival; the Newtown Festival.

Fig.2 Photographs of Newtown Heritage Area (Source: Wellington City Council 2015)

3. Heritage Management

The properties situated within the Newtown Heritage Area are privately owned. Planning rules
protect the heritage values of the exterior of the buildings only; modifications to the exterior require
planning permission however modifications to the interior are a permitted activity. The current planning
framework protects only tangible heritage values. Where buildings are considered earthquake prone
they are prioritized for Council funding which assists owners to seismically strengthen them. There is
no identified buffer zone for the Newtown Heritage Area, nor are the heritage values of the buffer zone
well understood.

4. Risk Assessment

Wellington is situated in a zone of high seismic activity; the primary hazard identified for Newtown
Heritage Area is earthquake (including ground shaking and liquefaction). Wellington is also at risk
from tsunami; although the Newtown Heritage Area is situated outside of the areas at highest risk
from tsunami it is a place people will evacuate to in response to a tsunami warning. Climate change
related hazards including higher rainfall, flooding and wind are also identified as risks to the Newtown
Heritage Area. In the wider landscape the town’s green belt on the hills surrounding Newtown is a risk
from wildfire.

69

Newtown Heritage Area is subject to a number of vulnerabilities these are documented in Table 1
below.
Table 1 List of vulnerabilities identified for Newtown Heritage Area

Vulnerability

Description

Legislation/Institutional/
Policy/Planning•Legislation for the protection of tangible heritage only
•Changes to legislation shortening timeframes for seismic strengthening
may mean that owners may seek to demolish their buildings•No DRM policy for heritage a national, regional or district level•No DRM plan for Newtown Heritage Area
•Heritage is not incorporated in a Community Disaster Response Plan
•Situated on a strategic route for hospital and emergency services whichmeans the road must be kept open
•Buffer zone not defined or understoodPhysical•Earthquake prone buildings•Wooden buildings (fire)•Lack of maintenance (abandoned buildings)•Past interventions•Failing infrastructure•Power and trolley bus lines

Communication•Lack of coordination between heritage agencies and those responsible
for civil defense. Heritage values not known by emergency response
agencies•Lack of communication between heritage agencies and community
stakeholders•Risks may not be fully understood by the community

Information•Risk identification information lacking for climate change at this location(rain, wind, frequency of storms, past effects)•Detailed information on buildings incomplete and not necessarily
available digitally

Intangible•Lack understanding of the intangible values of the heritage area

As part of the ITC, the scenario I developed for the Newtown Heritage Area case study involved amagnitude 7.1 earthquake with continued aftershocks and a tsunami warning requiring the evacuationof the central city. Potential impacts of such a disaster include building damage or collapse, injury or
loss of life, financial loss, loss of business during the recovery, loss or reduction of heritage values anda loss of a focal point for the community. Potential impacts of a disaster on the heritage values in thecase of Newtown Heritage Area are documented in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Heritage attributes for Newtown Heritage Area and potential impacts

70

Heritage Attribute

Potential Impact

Historic buildings

Irreversible loss of heritage fabric and buildings

Continued use

Temporary or permanent loss of the street for commercial activity willaffect the livelihoods of the community. Shift in community focus/identity

Cohesive streetscapeDue to the significance derived from the group value the loss of just oneof the buildings would diminish the value of the group and the heritagearea2.9 Disaster Risk Management Planning for Heritage in New Zealand:
Case Study Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area, Wellington

5. Risk Management

A number of mitigation methods need be developed for the Newtown Heritage Area a preliminary
selection of these are detailed in Table 3 below. Table 3 also includes identified key stakeholders whoshould be integral to the development of mitigation methods.
Table 1 List of vulnerabilities identified for Newtown Heritage Area

Mitigation

Stakeholders

No DRM policy for
heritage at national/
regional/district level

Prepare evidence thatheritage is at risk, thatit has economic value
and that it contributes
to recovery; this will
support an argument
for incorporation ofheritage into DRM
Policy and Planning

Heritage Agencies: Ministry for Culture andHeritage, Department of Conservation, Heritage
New Zealand.
Universities: University of Canterbury
Civil Defense
Local Government: Strategy and Policy,
Community Relations, Building Resilience, City
Planning - Heritage

Lack of coordination
between heritageagencies and those
responsible for civil
defense. Heritage
values not known by
emergency response
agencies.

Identify stakeholders
in Civil Defense at anational, regional andlocal level and create
a communication
network

Heritage Agencies: Ministry for Culture andHeritage, Department of Conservation, Heritage
New Zealand.
Civil Defense
Emergency response agencies
Local Government: City Planning – Heritage,
Resilience

Risk identification
information lacking forclimate change at thislocation (rain, wind,frequency of storms)

Identify climatechange indicators,
measure, monitor,
identify vulnerabilities

National Institute for Water and AtmosphericResearch
New Zealand Climate Change ResearchInstitute
Universities: Massey University Department ofGeography, University of Victoria Department ofGeography, Environment and Earth Sciences
Greater Wellington Regional Council
Local Government: Resilience, City Planning –Heritage

Earthquake pronebuildings

Seismically strengthenbuildings

Central Government: Ministry for Culture andHeritage, Heritage New Zealand, Ministry for
Building Innovation and Technology
Independent funding organizations: Lottery
Grants Board
Local Government: City Planning – Heritage,
Resource Consents, Building Consents andCompliance, Building Resilience
Industry professionals: engineers, conservationarchitects, construction

Detailed information onbuildings incomplete
and not available
digitally

Gather complete
set of information onbuildings for inclusionin the online heritage
inventory

Local Government: City Planning - Heritage,
City Archives, Building Consents andCompliance, Building Resilience
Consultants: historians, conservation architects,
engineers

No DRM Plan for
Newtown Heritage
Area

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Vulnerability71

6. Response and recovery

In terms of the initial response to a disaster, Figure 3 illustrates a proposed emergency response teamand communication protocol that could be developed between emergency responders, Civil Defense
and heritage agencies. Along with legislation that has designed to enable greater consideration ofheritage in an initial response to a disaster, it is envisaged that a coordinated initial response involving
heritage agencies and experts would go some way toward preventing such unnecessary loss ofheritage as was experienced as a result of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Figure 4 illustrates anapproach from emergency response through short and long term recovery planning for the Newtown
Heritage Area case study. The diagram also lists key stakeholders identified for each stage of recovery.

Fig.3 Diagram illustrating how an emergency response to heritage might be coordinatedFig.4 Flow diagram illustrating response and recovery for the case study heritage area72

2.9 Disaster Risk Management Planning for Heritage in New Zealand:
Case Study Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage Area, Wellington

7. Pilot ProjectAs a result of the Christchurch earthquake in 2011 numerous heritage buildings were demolishedin the initial response to the earthquake. Following a review of that event and the, legislation wasamended to ensure that New Zealand’s lead heritage agency, Heritage New Zealand, is consulted
before the demolition of places of national significance. A communication protocol and frameworkfor how consideration will be given to cultural heritage in an emergency response has not yet been
established. As a priority, therefore I proposed a pilot project aimed at opening lines of communication
between emergency responders, civil defense and the heritage agencies and working with theseagencies and the community in the development of plans and protocols. Table 3 below outlines thecomponents of my proposed pilot project.
Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Table 3 Outline of proposed pilot project

Proposed pilot project
Issue: Lack of Coordination between heritage agencies and those responsible for Civil Defense.
Action: Identify stakeholders in Civil Defense at a national, regional and local level and create acommunication network.
Involve: Heritage Agencies: Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Department of Conservation, Heritage
New Zealand. Research institutes. Civil Defense. Local Government: Strategy and Policy, Community
Relations, Building Resilience, City Planning – Heritage
Timeframe: 6 months
Issue: No DRM policy for heritage at national/regional/district level
Action: Prepare evidence that heritage is at risk, that it has economic value, that it contributes torecovery to support argument for incorporation into DRM Policy and Planning
Involve: Heritage Agencies: Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Department of Conservation, Heritage
New Zealand. Research institutes. Civil Defense. Local Government: Strategy and Policy, Community
Relations, Building Resilience, City Planning – Heritage
Timeframe: 6 months
Issue: Lack of communication between heritage agencies and community stakeholders. Heritage is notincorporated into Community Disaster Response Plans.
Action: Identify community leaders, key individuals in Civil Defense who are responsible for thedevelopment of community response planning. Develop and understanding of community values of the
Heritage Area and where those values align with heritage.
Involve: Heritage New Zealand. Civil Defense. Emergency response agencies. Local Government: City
Planning – Heritage, Community Relations. Community Leaders
Timeframe: 12 months.

8. Conclusion

The pilot project that I developed during the ITC was underway at the time the 7.8 magnitude Kaikoura
earthquake occurred on the 14th of November. Unfortunately I had not sufficiently progressed thedevelopment of our emergency response team and communication protocol for heritage at this time.
However following the earthquake a network of heritage professionals were coordinated to undertake
rapid assessment of heritage buildings using a digital rapid assessment form I developed for thispurpose. The aim of the form is to develop a comprehensive understanding of heritage buildings in
Wellington City, including Newtown Heritage Area, that require stabilization, repairs and engineering
assessments. The results will aid Council in its prioritization of recovery funding. Changes are currently
being made to the Wellington City Council’s heritage fund to enable us to assist with immediatestabilization, repairs and engineering assessments in response to the earthquake. This experience andthe development of tools for an initial response to disaster will provide a useful platform for informing
my continued work on the pilot project. The training I received on the ITC has been invaluable in myability to formulate a heritage response to the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake and I am very grateful to
R-DMUCH for the experience. Thank you.

73

References

1) http://www. sciblogs.co.nz2) http://www.behive.govt.nz/release/more-targeted-approach-earthquake-prone-buildings
3) Wellington City Council: District Plan Heritage Inventory Report: Newtown Shopping Centre Heritage
Area. Unpublished report prepared by Wellinton City Council, 2015.

74

2.10 Climate Change over the Historic City of Antigua Guatemala
Barbara MINGUEZ GARCIA
Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Consultant at the World Bank, Spain

1. Introduction

As ITC participants usually present case studies from theirown countries, it is fair to start this article explaining why
a Spanish national, living in the United States, presentsa Guatemalan study case. The explanation is I work in the
Latin American Region at the World Bank 1), an institution withextensive experience in Cultural Heritage since its inception,and long and deep engagement with client countries on
Disaster Risk Management. Recently, the World Bank has
also included Climate Change as one of the key cross-cutting
topics. However a big challenge has been linking disaster risk
assessments to specific cultural heritage sites 2).
The Central American Region is one of the most hazard prone
areas in the world. Although the disaster risk management Fig. 1 Arco de Santa Catalina, symbol of Antigua
discipline has evolved during the last decade, from postdisaster management and emergency response to risk preparedness and prevention, other priorities
usually relegate culture heritage in the agenda of local and national governments and disasterrisk plans don’t include heritage. Antigua Guatemala, a city with centuries of history threatened byincreasing impacts of natural hazards, is a perfect example to illustrate the importance of linking
disaster risk management and cultural heritage disciplines.
This study presents an imaginary scenario with a focus on climate change induced hazards, following
the theme of the ITC 2016. It includes some tangible and intangible attributes, in order to evaluate
potential risk, and suggest some mitigation measures.

2. Antigua Guatemala

Natural disasters have characterized the historyof Antigua Guatemala. The city was founded in
1542 as the capital Santiago de los Caballerosde Guatemala, moved already from today Ciudad
Vieja (Old City) after an eruption of Volcán deAgua (Volcano of Water). However, the Santa
Marta earthquakes of 1773 destroyed the city,
Fig. 2 Antigua Guatemala and Volcán de Agua (Google Earth)forcing another relocation of the capital, tocurrent Guatemala City. The people living in the ruinsof Santiago slowly rebuilt their city and started referring
to it as Antigua Guatemala (Ancient Guatemala City) 3).
During almost three centuries this city was the cultural,
economic, religious, political and educational centerfor the entire region, boasting an important numberof monuments, still preserved as ruins. UNESCO
designated the city of Antigua Guatemala a World
Heritage Site in 1979, recognizing it as one of the best
examples of 16th-century city in Latin America. Not only
has the basic Renaissance grid plan of the city had been Fig. 3 Antigua Guatemala cobblestone street

75maintained since 1543, but also most of the surviving Baroque buildings from 17th and 18th centuries
are magnificent examples of colonial architecture.
Regarding the legal framework, the Protective Law of the City of La Antigua Guatemala, Decree 6069 (1969) created the National Council for the Protection of La Antigua Guatemala (CNPAG) 4). With
respect to risk management, the National Coordination for Disaster Reduction (CONRED) implements
the National Policy for Disaster Risk Reduction, at the national level. In 2010, the Master Plan of La
Antigua Guatemala was developed following UNESCO guidelines to safeguard the declared heritage,
including an extensive database of buildings of the historic centre 5). Nevertheless, an extensive plan
for risk management has not been developed yet for this historic city, despite the recommendations ofdifferent experts 6).

3. Attributes and Values

Antigua Guatemala shows several cultural
attributes, both tangible and intangible, withdifferent associated values.
An important feature of Antigua historicarchitecture is the development of aregional adaptation of the Baroque style,designed to withstand intensity of shaking
from earthquakes very common to theregion. The Barroco Antigüeño or Seismic
Baroque architectural style includes theuse of decorative stucco for interior andexterior ornamentation, main facades with a Fig. 4 Ruins of the Cathedral
central window niche and often a deeply-carved tympanum, massive buildings, and low bell towers
designed to withstand the region’s frequent earthquakes 7). The Ruins (Fig. 4) and the city’s 16thcentury Renaissance grid pattern are signs of identity of Antigua Guatemala, preserved thanks tothe partial abandonment of the city in 1776 and the regulations prohibiting the repair and constructionof new buildings. Cobblestone streets, plazas –including fountains –, and vernacular architecturecomplete the heritage of this living historic city.
Religion also has significant relevance in Antigua. Numerous churches and monasteries reflect
today the influence of the Catholic Church during the colonial period. Antigua Guatemala was also a
center for the exportation of religious images and statues to the rest of the American continent and to
Spain during the 17th and 18th centuries. This kind of traditional art remains present in the celebrations
during Semana Santa (Easter). The manifestations of intangible culture in Antigua, especially during
this religious festivities, are therefore
another fundamental sign of identity,
and attract an increasing number ofvisitors every year. Fig. 5 shows the
traditional alfombras –carpets overthe cobblestone streets made by dyed
sawdust, flowers, vegetables, etc.,
and the procesiones –processions
with images representing the Passionof Christ carried on huge wooden
platforms.
Historic buildings, museums andcultural centers are also tangible
attributes. Finally, two more intangible
attributes are the admirable
Fig. 5 Semana Santa celebration
5)76

2.10 Climate Change over the Historic City of Antigua Guatemalalandscape characterized by the volcanoes surrounding the city, and the language: Antigua Guatemala
is a leading destination in the region for foreign students who want to take Spanish courses, so thislearning tradition should be taken into account as a cultural attribute.
Table 1Attributes

Associated Values
Intangible – Immovable– Cultural

Architectonic, Historical, Archaeological, Touristic,
Aesthetic.

Ruins

Tangible – Immovable– Cultural

Architectonic, Historical, Archaeological, Touristic,
Aesthetic.

Churches

Tangible – Immovable– Cultural

Religious, Architectonic, Historical, Touristic,
Aesthetic.

Semana Santa

Intangible – Movable –CulturalReligious, Historical, Touristic, Aesthetic.

Historic buildings

Tangible – Immovable– Cultural

Administrative, Architectonic, Historical, Touristic,
Aesthetic.

Museums

Tangible – Movable –CulturalHistorical, Archaeological, Touristic

Squares/ Streets

Tangible – Immovable– MixedSocial, Historical, Touristic, Aesthetic.

Vernacular archit.

Tangible – Immovable– Cultural

Residential, Traditional, Architectonic, Historic.

Spanish Schools

Intangible – Movable –Cultural

Educational, Social, Touristic.

Cemeteries

Tangible – Movable (?)– Cultural

Religious, Traditional, Social.

LandscapeIntangible – Immovable– Natural

Environmental, Aesthetic, Social, Touristic.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

BarrocoAntigüeño

4. Hazards and vulnerabilities

Natural hazards only lead to disasters when its effects negatively affect human life, and theconsequences depend on the vulnerability of the assets and population exposed to these hazards.
Antigua Guatemala is located in one of the most hazard prone regions, threatened by earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, landslides, fires, and, exacerbated by climate changes, hurricanes and floods.
Figure 6 shows the risk map
for landslide and flood (blue).
In addition, tourism should
be considered both hazard
and vulnerability, since anincreasing number of tourists
might cause an uncontrolled
growth of the city, as well as
gentrification and increase
traffic throughout the historic
district. According to UNESCO,
there are concerns relate to
new hotels constructed into
existing ruins 7). On the other
hand, tourism represents Fig. 6 Detail of the Landslide and Flood Risk map by CONRED
8)77

a vulnerability because visitors are not familiar with the environment in case of emergency. In addition,
it is important to highlight that hazards associated with climate change are becoming more and moreunpredictable and intense, making heritage more vulnerable 9).
Three main types of vulnerabilities could be identified in Antigua Guatemala: physical, mainly toearthquakes (the biggest ones took place in 1773 and 1976), hurricanes (Mitch 1998, Stan 2005,
and Agatha 2010), and floods (caused by Pensativo River overflows during rainy season); social,because of the variety of groups with different interests and necessities, such as residents, staff of the
tourist sector, visitors, and international students; and institutional, due to the lack of communication/
coordination between the Municipality and the agencies involved in heritage conservation and disasterrisk management, such as CNPAG and CONRED, respectively.
Nevertheless, a broader and more comprehensive study should analyze the specific vulnerabilities
associated to each one of the cultural attributes. In order to do that, it would be necessary to investigate
the possible impact of different hazards, and the effects over the assigned values. As mentioned, theuncertainty caused by climate change needs to be taken into consideration, because it affects thefrequency of the hazards and the grade of their impacts.

5. Risk and mitigation

Since risk is the resultant combination of hazard + exposure + vulnerability, in the case of the heritageof Antigua Guatemala calculate the risk is not easy. There are several variables that need to be taken
into account. Therefore, it would be necessary to analyze different scenarios, with different hazards (aswell as developing multi-hazard scenarios) and review the specific vulnerabilities for each exposed
attribute. This case is also more complex because is a whole historic living city, therefore the heritageis distribute through a large space and in case of an emergency, the priority will focus in saving lives.
This is why risk assessments and subsequent mitigation plans are fundamental to protect cultural
heritage for future generations.
The imaginary scenario developed during the ITC 2016 focused on climate change induced hazards.
A hurricane followed by floods, and landslides in the surrounding of the city, during the Eastercelebration. The election of this case study highlights the uncertainty that climate change is causing
over phenomena suchas hurricanes andother associate hazards
like floods. These canbe increased by cityvulnerabilities–for
instance, clogged
sewerage caused
flooding in the past.
This case also broughtboth movable art andin t a n g i b l e
c u l t u reinto the picture. The
table below showsa summar y of theimaginary scenario.

Fig. 7 Map and plan detail of Monuments of Antigua Guatemala 4)78

2.10 Climate Change over the Historic City of Antigua Guatemala

Table 2

Scenario

Possible Impact

Mitigation measures

Stakeholders Attributes

Hurricane fromthe Caribbean,changing direction
unexpectedly

Strong winds andheavy rainfall overthe non-prepared
city

Early warning system for hurricane
alert; tourists evacuation plan;
Possible structural studies ofbuildings to reinforce external
elements

CONRED
Municipal
authorities
CNPAG

Ruins
Historicbuildings
SemanaSanta

Flood in the core area
caused by heavy
rainfall and clogged
sewerage system

High level of water instreets and houses
basements; affecting
Easter celebration art

Periodically cleaning & maintenance ofthe sewerage system;
Water collection for storage and use
during dry season to mitigate drought

Municipal
authorities
CNPAG
Communitie

Streets/ Squares
Vernacular Arch.
Museums
Churches

Easter celebration, Incidents caused by Reinforce emergency service focus
brings more visitors delay in cancellation on tourists; information campaign;
to the city, national the celebration and Prepare shelters for movable art used
& foreigners
uninformed tourists in processions

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Landslide in the
Disruption in roads, Geological studies recommended and CONRED
buffer area, caused communication lines, possible retaining wall methods in prone National
Landscapeby heavy rainfall
electricity system
areas close to roads or services
government
Municipality Semana Santa
CNPAG
Religious
Communities sculptures andTourist sector street art

Therefore, the disaster risk over Antigua heritage can be reduced. While hurricanes are unavoidable,
preparedness measures could be taken and floods and landslides could be anticipated and mitigated.
In the same way, vulnerability increased by tourism could be reduced by developing a comprehensive
tourism management plan, including disaster mitigation measures as well as risk preparedness, andreinforcing emergency services with a special focus on tourists, foreign students and visitors. Fig. 7
shows the detailed map of monuments developed in the Master Plan 5) reflecting the exhaustive workof documentation carried out.

6. Conclusions

Antigua Guatemala is a jewel from 16th-18th centuries,
preserved despite several natural hazards. At the sametime, the city is a living cultural reference in the region for its
artistic manifestations, celebrations, and language learning
traditions. Therefore, the role of the local community in thepreservation of the heritage of Antigua is crucial.
A key consideration while designing disaster risk plansfor cultural heritage should be the community involvement
to ensure that official efforts are appropriately supported.
In the case of Antigua, there are several groups, such as
religious fraternities, communities of residents, commerce
associations, tourist sector, who should be involved inaction plans to protect the city heritage.
The coordination between authorities is fundamental. The
Municipality should lead the efforts, strengthening thecapacities of the CNPAG, as the main institution to protect
the heritage.
There are a series of challenges that would need to be Fig. 8 Local artisans close to ruins serving as storage for
Eastern movable art
addressed:
・Changing the post-disaster response approach into a culture of preparedness and prevention;
・Developing a public policy for local risk management with the objective of reducing disaster
impacts;
・Organizing trainings on Disaster Risk Reduction of Cultural Heritage for the local community, withthe objective of involving them and building capacity on risk preparedness;

79

・Developing a comprehensive visitor management plan, including disaster mitigation measures aswell as risk preparedness, and strengthening the role of the touristic police;
・Promoting interinstitutional collaboration at national and international levels.

7. Looking to the future

Preserving historic legacy for future generations is an important way to consolidate urban resilience,
especially because we are facing an increasingly uncertain future: it is essential for our historic cities toadapt their heritage conservation strategies to disaster risk plans. In order to actively promote this idea,
an initiative started by the World Bank DRM Hub, Tokyo 10) –which supports developing countries inmainstreaming disaster risk management in national development planning and investment projects–
is currently engaging Japanese experts through R-DMUCH to capture key solutions for resilient cultural
heritage to be shared with World Bank clients and teams, all around the world.
Hopefully, the end of this article is just the beginning of future projects.

References

1) The World Bank was created in 1944 as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
to rebuild European countries devastated by World War II. http://www.worldbank.org.
2) Minguez Garcia, B., Gunasekera, R., and Licciardi, G.: Approach, Activities, and Funding in
Cultural Heritage and Post Disaster Scenarios: the Case of The World Bank, Proc. of ICOMOS
International Scientific Symposium Post-Disaster Reconstruction, 2016.
3) Foster, L. V., A Brief History of Central America. Checkmark Books, New York, 2007.
4) Consejo Nacional para la Protección de la Antigua Guatemala http://cnpag.com/
5) Lopez Garcia, J.S., and Martin Hernandez, M.J.: Plan Maestro de la Antigua Guatemala, ULPGC,
2012.
6) Palma, S.: Modelo de planificación estratégica, con enfoque prospectivo y sistémico, para lagestión de riesgos de desastre en áreas urbanas históricas, Doctoral Tesis, Universidad de San
Carlos de Guatemala, 2016; Córdova, E.: Lineamientos mínimos de una política pública municipal,
para la gestión de riesgo en una ciudad turística-patrimonial: el caso de la Antigua Guatemala,Doctoral Tesis, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, 2012.
7) UNESCO Outstanding Universal Value for Antigua Guatemala http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/65
8) CONRED: Coordinadora Nacional para la Reducción de Desastres, Departamento de Sacatepéquez:
http://conred.gob.gt/site/mapas/municipales_ameindes/SACATEPEQUEZ/ANTIGUA%20
GUATEMALA/SACATEPEQUEZ%20301.pdf
9) Jigyasu, R.: Heritage and Resilience. Issues and Opportunities for Reducing Disaster Risks, 4thSession of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
10) World Bank Disaster Risk Management Hub, Tokyo http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
feature/2014/02/03/gfdrr-tokyo-hub in partnership with the Tokyo Development Learning Center
http://www.jointokyo.org/ and the Culture, Heritage, and Sustainable Tourism KSB https://collaboration.worldbank.org/groups/culture-heritage-and-sustainable-tourism-ksb-community
Photo Credits
Figs. 1, 3, 4, 8: Bárbara Mínguez García; Fig. 5: Carlos Enrique Berdúo, Master Plan of La Antigua
Guatemala (ULPGC). Fig. 7: Map courtesy of Manuel Martín, Master Plan of La Antigua Guatemala(ULPGC).

80

2.11 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Qhapaq Ñan in Chile

Claudia Cecilia GONZÁLEZ MUZZIO
Ambito Consultores ICOMOS Chile and Colegio de Arquitectos de Chile

1. Introduction

Qhapaq Ñan (QÑ), the Andean Road System, is a World Heritage Site inscribed in 2014. Its nomination
process was a tremendous effort of international coordination among Peru, Equator, Colombia,
Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, carried out during more than ten years.
The Outstanding Universal Value of QÑ refers to an extensive Inca communication, trade anddefence network of roads and associated structures covering more than 30,000 km, constructedby Prehispanic Andean communities over several centuries, through one of the world’s most extreme
geographical terrains, linking towns and centres of production over long distances. It demonstrates
mastery in engineering technology used to resolve challenges posed by the Andes various
landscapes and geography.
Several local communities remain custodians and continue to safeguard associated intangible
cultural traditions including languages, and values and principles of reciprocity, redistribution andduality. QÑ played an essential role in the organisation of space and society of an extensive
territory in South America. (UNESCO 2014)

2. Qhapaq Ñan in Chile, the selection of a case study

In Chile, 5 sections were nominated, in three regions of the north. The selected attributes (archaeologicalsites and roads) are expressions of different technologies and responses to diverse geographical andclimatic conditions.
For the purpose of developing a Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Plan, one of the sections was
selected, located in Antofagasta Region. The Cupo-Catarpe section comprises archaeological sites
and roads located in two communes, Calama and San Pedro de Atacama (Fig. 1). One of thesesites, “Tambo Catarpe” is situated on a terrace near San Pedro river and it is composed by dozens
of structures made by stone and mud probably built during the Inca period, and various cemeteries
from previous cultural groups. This site is characterised by a strong relationship with its surrounding
landscape, in the ancestral territory of Catarpe indigenous community.
Tambo Catarpe is 6.4 km north from San Pedro de Atacama, one of the three main tourist destinationsin Chile, due to its natural and cultural heritage. The area is visited by more than 100,000 tourists
annually. However, Catarpe site has no many visitors, and the access to the site is not regulated yet.
The main values of Tambo Catarpe are: archaeological value; scientific, technical and typologicalvalue (a Double Tambo); contextual value regarding its integration to landscape; identity value for local
communities; symbolic value of the cemeteries and Inca structures; and touristic value.

81Fig. 1 Qhapaq Ñan in Chile and selected case study, Tambo Catarpe archaeological site. (Pictures credits: CMNUTA 2014. Catarpe’s picture is courtesy of Ambito Consultores. Map from Nomination Dossier provided byCouncil of National Monuments)

3. Risk assessment and disaster scenario

The Management Plan (MP) of QÑ Chile defined three levels of management: National, Regional, andLocal. In each section, many stakeholders are supposed to be involved, including local authorities(Municipalities) grouped in an Association at regional level; and, at the local level, the management
units should be conformed by the indigenous communities on which territories the sites and roeads
are located.
Although a Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Program was developed as part of the MP, none of the
proposals are in place. Beside the lack of implementation, other vulnerabilities were recognised in theexisting DRR program as it considers only hazards at the local scale with lack of understanding of awider context, and interrelation with surrounding areas. Moreover, it proposes to do DRM but doesn’t
considers all the stakeholders involved.
At the local scale, Tambo Catarpe is placed in an area highly exposed to landslides, erosion, andfloods. But it is also exposed to earthquakes, weathering effects, uncontrolled tourism, looting ofarchaeological objects, and water management issues affecting San Pedro river. Although earthquakes
can be very destructive, they are less recurrent than other hazards that can affect the site, especiallyhydro-meteorological events. Moreover, an important issue is that annual precipitations are going
down, diminishing the caudal from San Pedro River (thus affecting local agriculture) but extreme
weather events are increasing in number and severity, particularly between December and March,
related to ENSO and Climate Change.
To prepare a possible disaster scenario for Tambo Catarpe, two things were taken into account. First, an
event that affected a section of Qhapaq Ñan in 2015, in Atacama Region, due to floods and mudslides
that disturbed three regions of the country, destroying one of the protected archaeological sites anddamaging others. The second was an analysis of total rain and maximum daily rain in the watershedof San Pedro river, as well as previous events occurred in the area, to estimate the recurrence period
and magnitude of a heavy rain event than might cause flood.
82

2.11 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Qhapaq Nan in Chile

The disaster imagined situation starts with an event of heavy rain during February 2018, summer
vacation time in Chile, which triggers a flash flood and debris flow on the river plain, along with somelandslides that affect several sectors of the archaeological site and its access. The effects of this eventare related to vulnerabilities and capacities (Fig. 2) as well as the characteristics of the event itself, so
due to weakness of structures and their materials some of them partially collapse, several people in thesite were injured due to landslide and lack of refuge, and there were diverse economic losses affecting
the site, the riverbed of San Pedro River, and the town of San Pedro de Atacama.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 2 Analysis of disaster scenario leading to DRM Plan goals

4. The Disaster Risk Management Plan

Based on the possible effects of an event triggered by heavy rain on the values of the site, thelandscape, the associated communities and their livelihoods, three goals for the DRM plan were
proposed: (1) to reduce vulnerabilities, (2) to reduce impacts of anthropogenic hazards, and (3) tobuild capacities, that aim to minimise the potential effects of a disaster on the site and its nearbyarea.
The DRM planning team should involve specialists, the local management unit and national authority
for cultural heritage; with the active participation of the local community, people involved in tourism,
the municipality, and some public offices and ministries related to infrastructure and DRM in general.
In addition, the plan should comprise all the stages of the disaster cycle.
Both the goals and the structure of DRM planning team are also applicable to other sites and roadsin QÑ Chile, with local differences.
A set of measures for mitigation and preparedness was proposed for Tambo Catarpe, related toeach of the goals defined and to each type of vulnerability recognised (Fig. 3). Measures include
physical actions in the site such as consolidation of archaeological structures, evacuation plan,an equipped visitor centre; the improvement of river infrastructure and the bridge to access San
Pedro de Atacama; institutional actions; education and training actions as well as land planningarrangements, considering the site and the village of Catarpe as well as the town of San Pedro deAtacama. Measures were prioritised according to short, medium, and long term (5 years). Some ofthe proposals take into account the current MP, although in this case DRM considerations were also
integrated. It must to be mentioned that most of these activities and projects would decrease thevulnerability of the site and its surrounding area not only to the occurrence of floods and landslides
caused by heavy rain, but also for other hazards that could affect them such as earthquakes andhuman induced hazards.

83

Fig. 3

In addition, an evacuation plan was developed for Tambo Catarpe. People should stay safe in the site
during a first stage of the emergency, until water recedes enough to allow them going back to the town
by car or by foot. The exhibition room at the visitor centre (to be built) would serve as temporary refuge;
it must have provisions for three days, satellite phone, and first aid supplies. Badly injured people
should be moved to Calama hospital located 100 km west, by ambulance or helicopter. Archaeologicalobjects that emerge due to the rain should be temporary stored in the visitor centre, and then moved
to the archaeological museum located in the town.
During an emergency, the local management unit and the staff in the site are the core emergency
team, in coordination with local authorities. Response actions require also mutual collaboration with
tourism guides and neighbours. The local management unit should inform to regional and national
levels, and the national authority in charge of cultural heritage (the Council of National Monuments)
should inform and/or ask for assistance to the international level (UNESCO, ICOMOS, and international
management committee of QÑ, when applies).
For the recovery process related to the scenario created, the DRM plan considers a period of 5
years for total recovery (Fig. 4). During each phase, technical and economic resources are needed.
For funding, several national and international funds are considered for application. In addition, it
could also possible to ask for funding to private companies operating in the area, as part of their
Corporate Social Responsibility actions, considering that they already have an active relation with local
communities and municipalities. Recovery actions are aimed not only to build back to the previous
state but to reduce the vulnerability of the site to the various hazards that may affect the area.

84

2.11 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Qhapaq Nan in Chile

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 4 Recovery activities and funding processes.

5. Conclusions

Although Qhapaq Ñan is a very complex World Heritage Site, some lessons learned during theInternational Training Course on DRM of Cultural Heritage are applicable at different managementlevels both at national and international scale. QÑ attributes such as archaeological ruins and roads
are very sensitive to natural hazards and specially to the effects of climate change. But beside thepossible loss of tangible values due to disasters, the associated communities can also suffer and theirlivelihoods may be affected as they are intrinsically related.
To raise awareness and improving coordination are key factors to reduce the overall vulnerability fromthe site and its nearby area to different hazards. In addition, to consider the importance of cultural
heritage for local communities is also crucial to prioritise actions of DRM in contexts where resource
for conservation of cultural properties are scarce.
It is relevant to consider multi-hazards and cascading hazards assessments as well as to define
feasible disaster scenarios to prioritise DRM measures, that should consider all the disaster cycle.
The implementation of these actions are aimed to reduce vulnerabilities of the heritage site and its
surroundings as well as to improve capacities of communities and authorities to deal with future events,
some of which will be probably more recurrent and severe due to climate change.

Reference

1) UNESCO: WHC-14/38.COM/8B WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, Thirty-eighth session, Item 8 of
the Provisional Agenda: Establishment of the World Heritage List and of the List of World Heritage in
Danger, 8B. Nominations to the World Heritage List. Doha, Qatar, 15 - 25 June 2014.
2) Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales - Universidad de Tarapacá (CMN-UTA): Plan maestro parala conservación y gestión del Qhapaq Ñan – Sistema Vial Andino - Chile. Versión para consulta.
Santiago, 2014.

85

2.12 Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk in Danube Delta Biosphere
Reserve, Romania
Mihaela HĂRMĂNESCU“Ion Mincu” Univeristy of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania

1. Introduction

The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) is a complex site situated in South–East of Romania
that was created by Government Decision No. 983/1990 and by the Law No. 82/1993. At international
level, DDBR is listed within three international environmental protection networks: The International
Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1990), The Convention of
Wetland Zones of World Importance (RAMSAR Convention - 1991), Natura 2000 and the International
Biosphere Network (UNESCO - M&B program).
The Danube crosses Europe from Germany to the Black Sea, Romania, where it forms the Danube
Delta with a shape of a triangle whose tip is oriented westwards whereas its basis is situated eastwards,
all along the Black Sea coast. The hydrographic network formed by three main branches: Chilia in thenorth, Sulina in the central part and Sfântu Gheorghe in the south. The last two main branches havebeen rectified several times and 93.3% of the delta area is between –1 m and +2 m from the Black Sea
mean level and 79.5% is under the 0 m level, meaning that almost two thirds of the total areas of thedelta are permanently submerged1). The site includes geographic units, divided by their morphologicaland biological characteristic: The Danube Delta itself, the Razim – Sinoe lagoon complex, Danube
River east to Cotu Pisicii, the Isaccea – Tulcea floodplain, the Murighiol -Plopu saline plains and theBlack Sea coast from Chilia arm to Capul Midia, out to 20 m depth 2) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 UNESCO site Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) location and specificity

Inscribed in UNESCO for criteria (vii), (x) as a natural property, the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
was described by the Committee as “Outstanding example representing the major stages of the Earth’s
evolutionary history, a significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and interaction ofhuman beings with their natural environment. It contains unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena,formations or features of exceptional natural beauty. It is an outstanding example of a most important
ecosystem, being a wetland ecosystem on a vast scale, unique both in its European context andinternationally.” 3)

2. Value and attributes

Considered the second largest delta in Europe, a vast and complex property with an area of 5800 km2,
the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve can be read at different scales, showing different attributes ofthe site related to different associated values. The heritage values of the Danube Delta represent thenatural (landscape, fauna, flora, delta’s biodiversity, climate) and human (culture, history and human862.12 Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

settlements) resources of a landscape in continuous geological and man-induces transformation.
Within site boundaries, there are natural zones with special complete protection (natural heritagestrictly protected), buffer zones, areas for ecological restauration and economic (sustainable
developments) zones, including also human settlements. While its natural attribute is certainly obvious
for its biodiversity value and well known through experts, academics for educational potential value,
there are, however, substantial visible marks of uninterrupted habitation and productive activities for
centuries and one attributes can carry more values. What is certain is that today the site is a sociocultural palimpsest (Fig. 2) created by successive cultures and the landscape display significant
cultural assets, an intangible value, own to the acculturation phenomena between the Romanian andother ethnics (Bulgarian, Ukrainians, Lippovans). Cultural diffusion and diversity is also proved in the
different types of existing attributes associated to historical and cultural values, architectural value(mosques, churches ancient settlement, fortresses, vernacular architecture, etc).
The beauty complexity of the site attract a large number of visitors generated by tourism industry,
most of the time from spring to autumn and the territory has been transform into international touristic
destination.

Fig. 2 DDBR Cultural and natural heritage inventory and the relation with the UNESCO site

Gradually, from the adaptation of human communities to environment and available natural resources(traditional fishing, productive landscape, reeds) to intensive exploitation of the land and developed
tourism exploitation went alongside to economic, social and political changes and highlights thecontinuous use that have more local and regional value.

3. Partners and stakeholder’s identification

Due the spread of the monuments and sites throughout the site territory, the entities that involved in
the protection of the cultural heritage are National Institute of Heritage and Ministry of Culture, for thenational monuments and sites (A) and County Office of the Ministry of Culture for local monuments
and sites (B).
Due to the high complexity of the site, DDBR has its own governmental management administration -87

Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA) that protect biodiversity values of the UNESCO
site, there are more three categories of possible entities involved in management process:・Entities with regional level interests;
・Entities with local level interests such as: receiving fish points, private commercial societies, local
councils etc;
・Governmental institutions that are involved in the territory level: National Environment Guard;
Administration And National Affaires Ministry; Agriculture, Forests And Rural Development
Ministry; Tulcea County Council; Tulcea Mayority; County Council; Local Councils; County;
Association For Sportive Hunting And Fishing (CASHF); National Administration “Romanian
Waters”; Dobrogea-Litoral Waters Department; National Department For Tourism Forests National
Department – Romsilva; Romanian Shipping Authority.

4. Vulnerability and risk assessment

Climate change is a major challenge of our generation and is not anymore a surprise that could
increase flooding and other risks throughout the whole water cycle in the next years. In Europe floodrisk still represent a major threat and despite all the policies, the measures taken (European Flood Alert
System) during the past decades and also the decision to implement of the European Flood Directive
2007/60/EC, large floods have occurred almost every year. The statistics shows that catastrophicallyfloods in Europe are especially along the Danube river 1). Looking of the last major flooding from2006 and 2010 following by heavy rain and snowfalls and in the next years by sever droughts, canbe noticed also maximum discharge of the Danube in Tulcea town that reveals the water levels at theentrance of the delta and touristic, confirmed by a major flood of that area. (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Danube water levels at Tulcea in 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and between 1931-2011 2)Main drivers of change in the region are increase in average annual temperature and change inseasonal distribution of precipitation in the Danube Delta sub-basin and in the entire Danube basin.
The DDBR is a representative flood hazard site as it has been affected by climate-related floods
and hence by systematic rises of the water level and some areas are more prone to this risk, someless. To evaluate the risk, it is important to take into analysis the anthropic / build component of thelandscape and geographical position of the attributes that, in this case is reported to inland, wetlandand shoreline. Besides climate change impacts, also other factors such as social, demographic, andeconomic development are crucial here and each settlement has its specificity in many respects,
including the flood 4) and resulting different types of vulnerabilities:882.12 Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania

Fig. 4

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Delta’s landscape is made up of a multitude of channels, canals, floating islands and lakes (8.9% of
the delta), rural settlements and two towns: Tulcea, gate to the Danube Delta and Sulina, gate to Black
Sea. On the other hand, the human settlements confront with economic loss that cannot be coped,
thus generating additional pressure on environment and humans. Here it is worth to mention two
historical periods: from 1910–1944- PARID – Fishery and Floodplain Ad- ministration on Danube andthe communist period, 1948–1989, when during the programs exploiting the Delta’s resources theybuilt fishponds and reed, agricultural and forestry arrangements through embankments and cutting
channels.
Due the succession of the possible hazards in a different times, the repeated alternation flooding drying can be highly destructive to habitats, human settlements and their resources 2), and also theexisting cultural heritage:
Table 1POSITION OF
THE CULTURALATTRIBUTSDDBRA site

TYPES OFATTRIBUTES

Archeologicalsites
Fortresses;
Heritagebuildings;
Lighthouse;
Cemeteries.

Urban sites;
Urban
settlements;
Outside DDBRA Heritagesite
buildings;
Ancient
settlements.

VULNERABILITIESIMPACTS•Draughts, salt air, landslides,
coastal erosion, Corrosion•Salt wind, floods, draught,
Corrosion•Inappropriate policy and planning•Wood buildings•Difficult accessibility•Disagreement about how tomanage tourism in the site

•Physical damages:
building structures,
infrastructure drainage
form the landslide;•Economic damages:
touristic place, transporteconomy, disruption ofbasic services;•Social damages: possible
injured tourists andtrapped;•Environmental and natural
damages of water supply;•Institutional damages:
delay responses andorganization from local
administration and actors
involved;•Loss of lives•Inappropriate policy and planning•Past intervention-lack of
coordination•Detailed information about every
building•Disagreement about how tomanage tourism in the site
•No management body in action
yet

In an extreme weather condition, during the flooding season, the most vulnerable are the attributes
from Tulcea town, with a total of 40 attributes (3 archeological sites, 35 architectural monuments, 33
heritage buildings, 2 urban sites and 2 memorial monuments), especially the part along the Danube
river and the city center, at the limits of the preserve natural site. (Fig. 5)89

Fig. 5 Tulcea General Urban Planning, vulnerability plans of the city center and promenade, author processing source (PUG Tulcea)

5. Outline a Disaster Risk Management System

To develop and to implement preventive measures and strategies in the entire territory of the reserve
requires different stakeholders, coordination and actions at different levels and territory scales.

5.1 DRM Plans goals

The goals of the DRM Plan are to reduce potential negative effects from disasters on that area, impact
and surroundings (physical on site, social, economic, environmental) prioritizing human and cultural
heritage through decision, actions and direction:
・Identify ways to reduce the risk to cultural heritage attributes/ properties and assets involved in
the area;・Prioritizes risk reduction measures of human safety and cultural heritage;・Detection: (policies and regulations); Limits the size hazards, Mitigation and adaptation,
emergency response;
・Improve capacities: Plan team, different entities/actors/stakeholders;・Reduce potential negative effects from the hazards.

5.2 Mitigation strategies

For the mitigation strategies, several measures are proposed below. These measures takes inconsideration legal framework, national, regional and local policies, reconnecting different services
and monitoring and maintaining the water characteristics for peoples’ safety.
Table 2

INSTITUTUTIONAL
MEASUREMENTMITIGATION MEASUREMENTS

90

Measures of legislative and institutional measures related flow
management and monitoring:•Institutional arrangements;•Regional, local/ DD policies coordination with European Directive
2007/60/EC on the assessment and risk management flood legislativetransposi¬tion: GD nr.846 / 2010 to approve the national strategy forflood risk management in the medium and long term.
•Flow management information system data as part of the water;
monitoring;•Developing/ review an inventory system of cultural heritage: buildings,
objects (from the museum) intangible heritage

ENTITIES/STAKEHOLDERS
MMAP; MAI
(IGSU); MFE;
MDRAP;
ANAR; local
administration;
CJ, Romsilva;
Hidroelectrica;
another ownersof flood defense
infrastructure;
Professional
experts

STRUCTURAL MEASURES•Measurement to reduce inundation possibility;•Flood warning system; Measures on rainfall forecast –monitoring
system of equipment for selection and processing information on
rainfall;•Promoting and establish on interactive system for reporting information
on sediment-related disasters•Water natural retention measures in populate areas – to specify on themap;•Flood natural retention measurements - to specify on the map;
•Disaster information to underground buildings administrators regarding
the basements buildings (phreatic water);•Measures to increase resilience to flooding;•Measurements to increase awareness of the communities: education,
training;
Prevention measurements by changing or adapting land use practices:•Land use regulation: For any construction (except defense works andfences) located on a parcel or contiguous affected by natural hazards
such areas, documentation that will be prepared for construction will
be substantiated by studies specialty risks related to natural conditions
will determine the placement of new construction and works required
for the removal or mitigation and will be endorsed and approved bylaw;•Environment engagement of the river/ water supply for the communities:
Regulation regarding water/ drainage infrastructure: recommended
to use a rainwater collection system separately from wastewater andindustrial saver•Regulation on building safety: Integrate risk reduction into design,
construction and policy development sustainability to building
development/ Involves with the design, planning, construction,
operating and management a new development / redevelopment;•measures on management of emergency situations: Evacuation
measurement and plan for further hazards;•Monitoring and maintenance on CH inventory;•Integrating DRM into the existing urban planning: multi sector
coordination during the emergency and control urban development.

MMAP;
MAI (IGSU);
MFE; MDRAP;
ANAR;
Local
administration;
Professional
experts.
MFE;
MDRAP;
ANAR;
Local Authorities;
Municipality
Countyanother ownersof flood defense
problem;Ngo,s;
Professional
experts.

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Technical flood protection measures, most known structural measuresare:•For river: Dams and reservoirs/ Dikes and Embankments Drag at
territorial level; green infrastructure;•Recalibration of the watercourse: shore defenses;•Review on existing natural and human-induced hazards on the area
heavy rains, flooding, landslide and fires;•Buildings structure: consolidation, materials, hydro isolations;•Urban structure: drainage system, place of scenic beauty revival,•Art objects: restauration.

NON - STRUCTURAL MESUREMENTS

2.12 Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania

5.3 Emergency preparedness and response

Emergency team will be involved at the different levels from urban area to the building level (Museumof Fine Arts, in-use building). The proposed emergency preparedness and response procedure brings
together institution, technical teams, management units (Ministry Culture and INP), private sector(leader communities, NGO’s, etc.)
Considering that are existing management plans for all the levels, the local authority will play a bigrole during the disaster and an evaluation plan is necessary (Fig. 6) that will conduct to minimize flood
damages.

91Fig. 6 Evacuation plan proposal

5.4 Recovery plan

There are proposed three phases of the recovery plan. The first phase is the phase of the emergency
response: procurement of equipment and materials to stabilize buildings; recording and recovery ofcultural material; prioritize short term and long term recovery plan actions; procurement of professional
expertize for the needed fields.
The second one is recommended to be on short term strategies and aimed at stabilizing the recoveryof the most damages part elements and objects but also most valuable doing the restorations 6
months after flooding: damage assessment of the urban area, environmental area and the cultural
heritage buildings.
Long term strategies are important to integrate recovery / damages assessments in urban planning;
retrofitting the affected cultural attributes according to their value; prepare a full documentation for all thearea and its attributes (environment, cultural heritage, infrastructure, etc); use the experience to educate.
The entities involved: Community Leaders, INP, Civil Defense, research and education institutions.

6. Conclusion

The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve is an interesting study case for DRM proposal, a path tolandscapes awareness and a holistic approach on the nature- human relation. To connect strategies,
policies and different entities involved in the DRM of the Danube Delta is the important outcome fromthe chosen study case. The territory is a continuous living and overlap with climate change issue, willneed more attention and respect which is built with peoples’ education and awareness to DRM.

Reference:

1) Niculescu, S., Lardeux, S. C., Güttler, F., Rudant, J-P. : Multisensor systems and flood risk
management. Application to the Danube Delta using radar and hyperspectral imagery in Floodrisk in Danube Delta, Revue Télédétection, vol. 9, n° 3-4, p. 271-288, 2010.
2) Doroftei Mihai, Mierlă Marian, Danube Delta habitas versus climate change in BALWOIS 2012,
Orhid, Republic of Macedonia.
3) Danube Delta http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/588
4) Mierlă, M., Romanescu, Gh, : hydrological flood risk assessment for Ceatalchioi locality, Danube
Delta in Lucrările seminarului geografic “Dimitrie Cantemir” NR. 36, pp 11- 22, 2013.
5) Simona Niculescu, Cedric Lardeux, Jenica Hanganu, Gregoire Mercier, Laurence David: Change
detection in floodable areas of the Danube delta using radar images. Natural Hazards, Springer
Verlag, pp.1-18, 2015.
6) Tulcea General Urban Plan, http://www.primariatulcea.ro/urbanism-pug-rlu
7) Armaş I, Avram E :Perception of flood risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Nat Hazards 50(2), pp.
269–287, 2009.
8) EC (2007) Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks. European Community, 2007.
9) EC : A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters. European
Community, 2010.
10) EC : EU Strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries 2011-2014.
European Community, 2011.
11) EEA : Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview ofthe last decade. EEA technical report no 13/2010. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2010.
92

2.13 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Petra Archeological Park,
JordanMuhammad Fathi ALABSI
Architect, Department of Antiquities of Jordan

1. Introduction

Petra is a resource of extraordinary cultural and natural significance with considerable aesthetic,archaeological, anthropological and scientific values, and further potential yet to be discovered. It's amulticultural site where a lot of remains refer to many ancient cultural occupations; the first excavations
shows evidences for Pre-history age occupations; Paleolithic and Neolithic Ages, in addition to many
inscriptions discovers during excavations refers to the King of Edom (Iron Age). After then, Petra wasglorious in the Nabateans period as a capital them kingdom and continued to flourish under Roman
rule until Byzantine time, when Petra declined rapidly due to sea-based trade routes. After the interludeof the Crusaders, Petra was rarely mentioned in history. It regained attention after the famous visit of
The Swiss Traveler Burckhardt in 1812 (Akasheh and et al, 2013; Taylor, 2001; PNT, 1994).
Petra was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List as a cultural site in 1985. According to theWorld heritage centre of UNESCO, the Outstanding Universal Value of Petra resides in the vast extent
of elaborate tomb and temple architecture; religious high places; the remnant channels, tunnels anddiversion dams that combined with a vast network of cisterns and reservoirs which controlled andconserved seasonal rains, in addition to the main three criterions: the dramatic approaching natural
winding rocky cleft (the Siq), the serried rows of numerous rock-cut tombs reflecting architectural
influences from the Assyrians and the outstanding fusion of Hellenistic architectural of the so-called"royal tombs" in Petra (including the Khasneh ... etc.), Petra became an iconic and famous internationalarchaeological site as well as a national icon and the best known, largest and most visited attraction in
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (WHC, 2016; USAID, 2014).

2. Petra archeological park

Since 1968, many schematic park boundaries were suggested to protect the archeological site (Gibbs,
R. and et al., 1968). In 1993, Petra was also declared a “Protected Site” by a decree of the Council of
Ministers, thus establishing it as a park, with protection further reinforced in 1996. In 2007, the areaof 264 square kilometers was established as the ‘Petra Archaeological Park’. Also in that year, Petra
was designated as one of the ‘New 7 Wonders of the World’, which has further raised its international
acclaim, and site popularity.

Fig. 1 The Petra Archeological Park Boundaries and Attributes

The Park hosts a lot of attributes within its boundaries and a along the tourists trials (Fig. 1), Table 1
show the most important Petra archeological park's attributes, the types of these attributes and theirassociated value.

93

Table 1 Most Important Petra Archeological Park's Attributes, Types and Values

Attributes of your Site

Type of attribute

Associated Values

Siq

Natural, Tangible, Cultural

Natural , Aesthetic, Visual
Historical , economical

The Treasury

Tangible, Cultural

Aesthetic, Visual, Historical,
Economical

Carving façade & TheatreTangible, Cultural

Aesthetic, Visual, HistoricalCentral Area

Tangible, Cultural

Aesthetic, Historical, Cultural,
economical

Monastery & Altar

Tangible, Cultural

Aesthetic, Historical, Cultural,
economical

Water system (channels anddams)

Tangible, Immovable (livelihood
heritage system)

Historical

The Bedouin Life Style

Intangible, Cultural

Historical, Livelihood value
Economical

Central Area Museum

Tangible, Movable

Historical, Economical

3. Stakeholders and Local community:

Besides the Petra Development and Tourism Region Authority, there are many stakeholders involved in
the region, each with their own set of priorities. Among these stakeholders are governmental institutions,which in specific areas have a strong say (e.g. archaeological protection or use of land), as well asprotective bodies such as UNESCO, PNT and RSCN. of great importance are the local populations of
the six communities, the Bedouin tribes with their traditions and all stakeholders involved in the regional
tourism industry. Special attention must be paid to the 19 associations and cooperatives located in
the region, which already present an encouraging basis for an increasingly active engagement of theregional population in planning for their future well being (ATC, 2011).

4. Disaster Risk Identification and Climate change

According to many studies, Petra is facing a lot of natural and human- made risks, which have impacted
the heritage values and the site users as well. UNESCO, RLICC and University of Leuven (2011)
created a Core Risk Mapping (CRM) to identify all the risk effects the monuments and people within thearcheological Park, they categorized the risks regarding to their impacts on human and natural, thesecategorizes include subcategories to natural or human agents (see table 1). Phenomenally, three main
natural hazard might effect on the monuments and people in the future; Seismic hazards, Flooding
hazards and landslides and rock falls hazards (UNDB and et al., 2012)
Most of Jordan’s territory is classified as desert. The data for the period 1961-2005 of 19 meteorologicalstations all over Jordan were evaluated with the following results (UNFCCC, 2009): The minimum
temperature increased by 0.4-2.8°C, decreasing total annual precipitation by 5-20%, rainy days
decreased by 3-10% in most of the stations. In most stations, relative humidity decreased whileevaporation increased incidents of flash flooding have claimed the lives of a few hundred in Jordan
over the years and affected the lives and livelihoods of thousands.

5. Seismic hazards in Petra and scenarios

Earthquake hazard has a 10% chance of being exceeded in 50 years, many researchers suggeststhat m the seismic events in the past (A.D. 110-114, 363, 749, 1068, 1212, 1458, and 1588) likely
caused damage in the region of southern Jordan and Aqaba, the location of the archeological site isclose to many active faults in addition to the small faults within the site will increase any seismic activity
impact in the future (Fig. 2) (UNDB and et al., 2012).
94

2.13 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Petra Archeological Park, Jordan

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 2 The Tectonic Map of the Region (Main Faults) and the Historical Earthquake Along the Dead Sea Fault

The geological features of Petra and unplanned facilities formed the most seismic activity vulnerabilities
and scenarios; the Fragile Rock, lot of debris and Steep cliffs will increase the rock falling risk in the timeof earthquakes, Risky Overlooking view place and Wooden shop position increase the users and tourists'
exposure to the rock falling risk, the Local transportation facilities and Narrow roads will obstruct any
evacuation works, stone monuments will be effected by rock falling as well as the seismic activity which will
increase the monuments damaged, moreover there are no earthquakes evacuation plan.

Fig. 3 The Earthquake Risk Predicted Impact on the Main Trails in Petra95

6. Earthquake disaster management plan

Three main stages create a good and efficient disaster management plan: Preparedness stage,
emergency response and recovery and rehabilitation plan.
6.1 preparedness stage
According to the earthquake scenarios analysis, there are a lot of mitigation strategies should beconsidered by stakeholders and management institutes, the first countermeasure of the rock-fallingrisk is making Survey to find the critical areas on the top of the mountains and cliffs that are facing the
tourists, this survey will identify the risky debris, loose blocks and cracks areas, after creating this risk
map and survey, the following strategies mitigate the rock falling risk:
1) Remove the debris in critical area annually
2) Stabilize the huge block which can't be removed by anchoring or fences, nets …etc.
3) Dislodge the small and medium blocks from the steep cliffs by professional climbers andstabilize the risky huge blocks annually
On the other hand, the unplanned facilities risk in the park need to re-planned, create New land-use
map, and relocate the facilities in saver places. Regarding to Built monuments collapse risk in the timeof earthquake, the stone structure monuments should reinforce by using appropriate conservation
methods.
6.2 Emergency Response stage
The response for any emergency situation depends on the areas that exposed to any predicted
impacts inside the park- in particular the fourth main touristic trails, as well as to the main road(back road) which is the only road inside the park and connected with Turkmanyiah- trail. The main
preparedness strategies in any emergency response in Petra archeological park post - earthquake
disaster are; the assembly points where the people should be gathered in the time of earthquake,avoiding any blockage will happen inside the narrows roads and the temporary shelters location insideand outside the park. The Following table shows the most important emergency plan preparedness inthe main three categories area in the park (high risk area, medium risk area and low risk area) (Table 2).
Table 2 The Preparedness Emergency Strategies and Planning Should be Done to Help the Emergency Team in Time of Earthquake

Location
Narrow roads

Preparation
Survey to set the best gathering points and implement the setting work
Install Alarm signage system

Large space area

Define Accessible alternative routes in case of blockage main trails roads for
emergency teamSet Emergency team (professional team+ local transportation, horses, camels … etc.)

Safe area

Create evacuation station and shelter in blue zone (safe areas): using
Reversible structure inside the parkUse many empty caves as storage of emergency response machines and tools

Emergency Team

Accessibility Team + Evacuation Team
Stakeholders: Government institutes DOA, PAP, MOTA, UNESCO, Police Tourism,
Civil Defense, Local Community Association, local community (workers in the field)
Training and awareness ( brochures for tourists)

Relating to the emergency preparedness strategies, the emergency response will concentrate on
avoiding blockages in the main roads and finding the best way and safe shelter place to evacuate
tourists. The alarm signage systems will guide people to the safe gathering points, then the accessibility
team and evacuation team will work together, where the accessibility team will create the possible
way for evacuation in case of road's blockage, but should just work in one way to avoid any conflicts
between their work and evacuation team. The evacuation team will firstly evacuate people to thetemporary shelters inside the park, then evacuate them to closer town outside the park ( Fig. 4).
96

2.13 Disaster Risk Management Plan for Petra Archeological Park, Jordan

Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

Fig. 4 The Proposed Evacuation plan Elements on the Petra Archeological Park's Map

6.3 Recovery and Rehabilitation plan

The recovery work (short-term) will focus on the situation after the earthquake time and monuments
deterioration, the supposed recovery works in Petra includes: Rabid risk and damage assessment,
Blockage Dislodgment work, First Aid stage and Stabilization work, these tasks need to create threeteams and contribution from all stakeholders in the site, the following diagram shows the most important
aspects of recovery plan in sequence:.

Fig. 5 The Most Important Aspects of Recovery Plan (Short Term and Long Term) in Sequence

97

The diagram above shows the relations between the recovery works are needed in the postearthquake situation. The short term creates a clear idea about the damages and does the first neededintervention to save the monuments and collection. Thereafter we have to set a long term plan withmain three aspects: restore all damaged parts, build back better all the facilities with new land use in
the site, and more concentration on the local community and stakeholders' awareness and training;by creating memorials and post disaster museum, providing a serious training for Petra stakeholders
and create volunteers teams. Concerning the funding resources, many of these might be involve inrecovery stages, such as the international institutes which work in Petra, in addition to the possibility ofcollaborating with the private sectors by initiatives and additional taxes.

References:

1) Taylor, J.: Petra and the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans. London, United Kingdom: I.B.Tauris,
2001.
2) Petra National Trust (PNT): Petra national park management plan, pp.50- 69, 1994.
3) Akasheh, T., et al.: The Petra conservation plan. prepared by the Cultech team In Cooperation withThe Petra Development and Tourism Regional Authority, pp.18- 33, 2013.
4) USAID Economic Growth Through Sustainable Tourism Project: Petra Conservation Action Plan,
pp.6, 2014.
5) World Heritage Centre (WHC): Petra, © UNESCO World Heritage Centre 1992-2016
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/326, Last update 2016.
6) Gibbs, R., et al.: US-NPS Master Plan for the Protection & Use of the Petra National Park. 1968.
7) ATC Consultants GmbH.: The Strategic Master Plan for Petra Region, The Petra Development andTourism Region Authority, pp.9, 2011.
8) UNESCO, RLICC and University of Leuven; Core Risk Mapping (CRM) Petra, pp.96, 2011.
9) United Nations for Development Business (UNDB), Dar Al- Omran infrastructure and environment
and Petra development tourism region authority (PDTRA); Integrated risk assessment for the Petradevelopment and Tourism Region, 2012.
10) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Jordan’s Second National
Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
pp.20, 2009.

98

2.14 Case Study Project - Rio de Janeiro World Heritage:
Tijuca National Park / Tijuca Forest Sector, Brazil
Maria Cristina Vereza LODI
Prefecture of Rio de Janeiro / Rio World Heritage Institute, Brazil

1. Introduction

Brazil belongs to the South American continent, with 7.491km of coastline, 26 states and the Federal
District, its capital, Brasilia. As one of the most significant bio-diversities in the world, the country’s
environment is expressed by six biomes: Pampas, Atlântic Forest, Cerrado, Pantanal, Amazon andCaatinga. The Brazilians geographical features, climatological, meteorological, geological andgeomorphological, besides the location and size, contribute greatly to the occurrence of disasters.
The improper land use and occupation increase the population's vulnerability to natural events andtherefore the damage and impacts of the disaster.
By 2010, 84% of Brazilians were living in cities1). Therefore, Brazil had the third highest number ofdeaths caused by disasters in 2011 and is among the nine countries with the highest record tragedies.
Floods in Brazil killed 900 people in 2011 - 3% of the world total. Only the tsunami in Japan and therains in the Philippines left superior balance. After the 2011 floods, the Ministry of National Integration
thru the National Center for Risk Management and Disaster, establish in April 2012 a new National
policy on Protection and Civil Defense, composed by the National Council for the Protection and Civil
Defense and an Information System and Disaster Monitoring. However, no specific DRM policy wascreated to protect the large number of Brazilian Cultural and Natural Heritage.

2. The Case Study Project Area

This case study, rather than a technical report, aims to draw the attention of the institutions directly involved
with the preservation of the Brazilian cultural and natural heritage to the need of studies to develop
specific procedures and practices for the disaster risk management of cultural heritage. Buildings,
natural and cultural areas and their buffer zones need extra care, taking into account the preservation of
their attributes and values, which made them legally protected and become important for all Brazilians.
The Tijuca National Park (TNP)- Tijuca Forest Sector was the object of study, chosen from the needto think of the Park as a cultural landscape, as it was classified when inscribed in the World Heritage
List of UNESCO in July 20122). It
was one of the most important
attributes of Rio de Janeiro’s
property, because it countedwith the participation oflandscape architects Glaziou
and Burle Marx. The casestudy area includes spaces
intended for picnics, children’s
recreation and leisure. Someof these points are now in acertain degree of deterioration,and need to be restored andrequalified, such as Açude da
Solidão (Burle Marx’s design)and Cascatinha Waterfall
touristic area, as well as thehistoric buildings, affected by
Fig. 1
multiple hazards.

99

The following chart was developed according to Rio’s WH OUV, showing the value’s assessment from
attributes and stakeholders, listed as the main agents to promote the preservation of the WH property
and the prevention of risks.
Table 1

3. Rio WH Disaster Risk Assessment

Located within one of the Atlantic Forest remainings of the Brazilian coast, the Rio’s Cultural Heritage
property is affected by a large number of hazards related with two major ones: Global Warming/Climate
Change and Urban Development. As a result of Rio’s geographical, climatological (tropical weather),meteorological, geological and geomorphological features, most of the secondary hazards - heavy
rain, thunder storms, flooding and slope failure has been historically reported and are aggravated in
the last decades due to the climate change.
The urban development on the other hand has been made enormous pressure on the property
boundaries and over its buffer zone, causing deforestation and pollution and increasing theoccurrence of fire and drought. As a touristic city, the increasing of the number of visitor and lackof proper infrastructure
has also been causing agreat damages to naturaland cultural features,such as suppression ofvegetation, graffiti andpollution caused by
vehicles and shuttles,
which are increasing on
the park's’ roads.
The scheme - MULTIHAZARD MAP - shows
the relationship between
the main / secondar yhazards
andthe
Rio’s WH attributes’
vulnerabilities.
Fig. 2100

2.14 Case Study Project - Rio De Janeiro World Heritage, Tijuca National Park / Tijuca Forest Sector, Brazil

4. Disaster Risk Management

The MITIGATION MEASURES shown as follow were divided into short, medium and long term
actions, and the stakeholders listed.
Table 2Outline of Disaster Risk Management Plans for Case Study Projects by ITC2016 Participants

As an initial strategy, a detailed DRM Plan was carried out for the TPN Tijuca Forest Sector,
establishing the risk prevention goals and mitigation measures. The RISK PREVENTION GOALS
respond for the lack of DRM policy, coordination and conservation of the cultural heritage within the
TPN, which are:
•To establish a specific policy for Rio’s WH DRM. Since the last decade the city has been improving
its DRM plan. Inaugurated on December 31, 2010, Rio Operations Center house 30 agencies
which monitor 24 hours a day, the everyday of the city. They are integrated into all stages of acrisis management from the anticipation, reduction and preparedness, to the immediate responseto events such as heavy rains, landslides and traffic accidents. Although the effectiveness of theexisting DRM system, the special care for cultural heritage is not comply on the recovery plans
and construction works that has been done among historic areas.
•To reinforce the DRM coordination with the existing management agencies (ICMBIO - naturalenvironment agency, IPHAN - cultural heritage agency and RIO’s PREFECTURE), the membersof the WH Committee and leaders of communities located within the property’s buffer zone;•To address a need for the conservation of historic buildings and infrastructure for risk.
The inventory of the cultural heritage are not updated regarding its state of conservation. A
conservation programme has to be drawn, and has to be develop in stages according to thefund raising schedule.

An EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN was drawn for the predicted scenario of a major event basedon the 1996 occurrence of a summer thunder storm, which reach the Tijuca Forest, causing flooding,debris flow, erosion and slope failures, devastating the forest vegetation, roads, picnic spaces anddestroying historic areas, such as the Açude da Solidão3).

101

Fig. 3

A DAMAGE INVENTORY AND RECOVERY PLANNING was developed as follow; focus on theneeds of conservation and/or restoration of cultural heritage and of infrastructure improvements forrisk prevention and mitigation. A fundraising campaign was point to be carry out by private and publicagencies to promote the execution of the recovery plan.

Fig. 4

References

1) Carmo, R. L., Dagnino, R. S., Johansen, I. C.: Transição demográfica e transição do consumo
urbano de água no Brasil. Rev Brasileira de Estudos de População. 31(1): 169190, 2014
2) Batista, M. N., Lodi, M. C. V., Winter, R. R., Rio de Janeiro: Carioca Landscapes between the
Mountain and the Sea, IPHAN, Brochure, 2011.
3) Lemos, M. L., Perez, R. A. R., Bezerra, F. O. S.: Estudos Arqueológicos do Parque Nacional da
Tijuca,Sociedade de Amigos do Museu Nacional, pp. 110-122, 2002.
102

3 Activities Undertaken
after The International Training Course
by Former Participants3.1 Cultural Heritage and Mitigation of Risk, Experience after ITC 2014,
EcuadorJuan Diego BADILLO REYES
Architect. Assistant professor, Ecuador

1. Introduction

In the last years, the management of risk has been included in agendas and treated to different
scales worldwide, the word resilience seems to replace the word sustainability in the politicalspeech.
The 2008 Constitution of Ecuador contemplates the protection of people and goods from nature
and anthropic disasters as a responsibility of the State and so it is the conservation of the cultural
heritage.
For this reason, institutions related to the two themes have been created in the last decade and ingeneral many attempts to modify the institutional model.
However, in spite of these efforts, the deterioration of the heritage, with high destruction figures, isundeniable, according to the Ecuadorian Information System of Cultural Heritage (SIPCE), 47% of
the national heritage is in deterioration or ruin.
Thus, in spite of the existence of these responsibilities of the State, local development plansinclude, in a limited way, the management of cultural heritage within its axes of action, and,likewise, cultural budgets remain low or nonexistent.

2. Projects

After ITC I participated in two cultural projects in which the topic of risk mitigation could be
included and gained importance for all the information collected.

2.1 Museum of Zaruma (Zaruma – Ecuador)

Zaruma, a city located in the south of the country, is characterized by its particular location where
its inhabitants are in constant danger with the risk due to their geography and illegal mining
activities.
The objective of the contract
was to carry out the studies
for the implementation of
the new museum of the city,using existing collections
and looking for new topics
that would reinforce theterritorial value of Zaruma.
In a city like Zaruma gold
mining, historically, throughall meanings has been partof the identity and daily lifeof the inhabitants of the city;
it is perceived as the "wealthFig. 1 Zaruma (Photo: C. Hirtz 2011)and misfortune”.
It was therefore imperative to include the “living with the risk” topic in this museum, as a firstattempt to create a policy of prevention and awareness of mitigation of risk.
Under the consideration that the city is consider itself a living museum, the objective is toinclude the management of risk within the city and not only inside the museum and within all the
programmes that the museum plan to have.
1043.1 Cultural Heritage and Mitigation of Risk, Experience after ITC 2014, Ecuador

・To create a museum that goes beyond the building. The city is a museum itself.
・To implement a strong awareness programme for disaster and risk management
・Awareness programmes using memory and art.
Three approaches have been defined with certain projects to consider in each one:

Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants(1) Urban
・S tairs as safe connectors in emergency.Due to the topography of the city, there aremany tiers connecting streets, these spaces
will be used to sensitize citizens about thevulnerability of the city and will also be used
to create a relation with emergency unit andsafety spots.
・Square / entrance.- a photo of the first fire
extinguisher system was found and the first Fig. 2 Zaruma (Photo: C. Hirtz 2011)
extinguisher of the city was found in the warehouse of the museum and both will installedoutside of the museum as part of the side entrance.
(2) Architectural
・Evacuation Routes.- Signaling and location plans. Staff and disaster relief agencies trained toevacuate works of cultural interest.
・Construction Technics / Materials.- Research of the techniques used as well as the materials
used for the construction of houses in the center of the city. Diffusion of the same and search
for improved techniques.
(3) Collection
・Living with risk.- An important chapter will be
to show the risk at the cities and how they
can be prevented. Implementation of gamesin the exhibition. Games nor only for children
but for any visitor
・Don’t be afraid be prepared.- Recovery ofdata for an exhibition in the safe zones of thecity where some art and photography work
will be displayed. We try to gather information
found in files and old archives that could help
to create awareness.
・I NPC educational programme.- National Fig. 3 Urban proposal (Badillo 2016)
Institute of Cultural Heritage (INPC) will give awareness courses and use the museum as theirmain focal point in the city.
At the moment, the INPC tries to work within the region with disaster mitigation and the museum
will implement periodically courses for inhabitants and schools to be prepared as part of theawareness programme,

2.2 Cultural Heritage Planning Agenda of the Canton of Riobamba (Riobamba– Ecuador)

Located in the center of the country, the city of Riobamba, at 2743 masl, is surrounded by snow andnear areas of natural protection such as the Sangay National Park and the Chimborazo Fauna Reserve.
The main economic activities, according to the last national census of 2010, are: agriculture, trade
and textile production.
Of the total of 225,740 inhabitants, about 50% of the region (canton) has no basic needs and 18%

105

live in extreme poverty. 32% of thetotal are indigenous groups.
According to figures from the national
information system of cultural heritage(SIPCE), Riobamba has 62% of theprovince's assets and has been
identified, mainly, built, movable andintangible heritage.
The municipality must face problems
of management with low budgets
in culture, focused on generation ofshort-term events and problems oflinkage between the different units, notso much for the capacity of the samebut for the existence of many units
that coincide in their competences.
Some of them are: risk management,
culture, tourism and spor t, ruraldevelopment and cultural heritage.
It is the first agenda of planning of
cultural heritage in the country, notonly inclusion of the cultural theme
within the planning plans, on thecontrar y, seeks the hierarchy ofFig. 4 Cover of the new planning agenda. GAD Riobamba (BOOM design 2016)
cultural heritage management as anopportunity for local development.
The information found in the history and in the risk maps were mainly analyzed in order to define
four general politics for the territory:
・Authenticity / Integrity
・Protection of natural landmark
・Propitiate the compact population
・Risk Management and ResilienceFig. 5 Cultural Heritage in Riobamba. Badillo 2016106

3.1 Cultural Heritage and Mitigation of Risk, Experience after ITC 2014, Ecuador

It served also to propose policies on future occupation in the area and, above all, prioritization of
the projects, understanding the vulnerability of heritage sites but also of the containers of museums
and archives.
The history contributed with important information regarding knowledge used in the past, theusage of water channels, the vegetation for agricultural terraces to prevent landsliding, but mainly
it provided valuable information of the reconstruction of the new city of Riobamba after the old
one was destroyed in the year of 1797 due to a mudslide provoked by the seismic movement.
For the planning of the new city, and with the idea of preventing another disaster, there were threeguidelines defined:
・Wide roads to help evacuation
・Increment number of squares to be used as gathering areas
・Limited height (two stories) of the dwellings to prevent damage in case of collapse.

3. Conclusions

Even though risk management seems to be understood, there is still a lot of work to be done inorder to have it applied at a local level; it is still difficult to consider the importance of the values of
the cultural heritage when it comes to work in the preparedness of urban planning.
Undoubtedly, the story already contains proposals that could be reused but they should be
reviewed and adapted to the reality of the moment without detracting from the considerations thatwere taken from the beginning.
The inclusion of cultural heritage and awareness of risk mitigation within education would facilitate
a better and more efficient management of the territory in the future.
This work shows that the past is soon forgotten and learnings fade over time. Solutions become
provisional or emerging without a future.
It is the responsibility of the public entities to define policies and be the head in the processes ofinclusion of the themes previously treated, however from any position in the private company it
is possible to propose and include the necessary considerations for a conscious and inclusive
territory management with intangible heritage

Activities undertaken after The International Training Course by Former Participants

Unluckily these guidelines, as the criteria of prevention, were not used again in the urban planningof the city and this is why the agenda tries to recover previous facts for the future.
Different to the many existing proposals for intervention in urbanism, this agenda sought theimplementation of new strategies that start from the reinforcement of the potentials found in history
linked to the development of micro economies.
It is important to propose strategies such as: digitalization of documentation of cultural heritage,
cultural history and media, tourism, city brand, nature – culture relation and cultural industries, buton the other hand it is necessary to reinforce the revitalization of traditional handcrafts, historicalreconstruction, interpretation and experience. In this case the community participation is still
active. The mingas, tuminas and jochas are still used for different activities at different levels with
common objectives and should be kept and related to mitigation of risk and cultural heritage
management.

Reference

1) Asamblea Constituyente: Constitución del Ecuador, 2008.
2) INPC: Sistema de Información de Patrimonio Cultural del Ecuador, 2016.
3) Agenda de planificación de patrimonio cultural del cantón Riobamba, 2015.

107

4 Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposiumof the UNESCO Chair International Training
Course on Disaster Risk Management ofCultural Heritage / Accomplishing Report of
the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'4.1 Background and Objectives

The Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage at Ritsumeikan University has
implemented the UNESCO Chair Program on Cultural Heritage and Risk Management, theInternational Training Course (ITC) since it was established in 2006. During 10 years, we haveengaged to reinforce the international scientific support network in order to build the institutional
capacity needed to formulate comprehensive disaster risk management plans that are based on
the characteristics of cultural heritage and nature of hazards in various sites.
In this anniversary symposium, we invited specialists from the international organizations including
UNESCO, ICCROM, and UNISDR as well as the former participants in order to review ourprevious activities and discuss the future vision on the ‘Disaster Mitigation for Cultural Heritage’ forprotecting our heritage from the disasters risks.
In addition, we reported on the follow up initiatives which have been funded by TOYOTAFoundation ‘Initiative Program’ since 2014 to 2016.

110

4.2 Programme

10:00

Address 1 : President of Ritsumeikan University, Mikio YOSHIDA

10:10

Address 2 : Former director of Rits-DMUCH, Kenzo TOKI

10:20

Address 3 : Managing Director of Toyota Foundation, Hiroshi ITO

10:30

Introduction of Key note speech and Follow up activity report

10:35

Key note speech 1 : Rohit JIGYASU (Ritsumeikan University)

11:05

Video Message 1 : Giovanni BOCCARD (UNESCO)

11:10

Key note speech 2 : Joseph KING (ICCROM)

11:40

Video Message 2 : German Tiangco VELASQUEZ (UNISDR)

11:50

Follow up activity report Kai WEISE (Nepal, ITC 2008)

12:10

Lunch Break

13:30

Introduction of Progress activity report and Panel discussion

13:35

Progress activity report <part 1>
Juan Diego BADILLO REYES(Ecuador, ITC2014)
Sang sun JO(South Korea, ITC2012)
Barbara CARANZA(taly, ITC2013)

14:50

Short break

15:00

Progress activity report <part 2>
Hatthaya SIRIPHATTHANAKUN (Thailand, ITC2013)
Zeynep GUL UNAL
(Turkey, ITC2010)
Abdelhamid SAYED(Egypt, ITC2014)

16:15

Short Break

16:35

Panel Discussion <Past, Present and Future>
A moderator : Joseph KING
Panelists : 7 former participants

17:50

Closing : Director of R-DMUCH, Takeyuki OKUBO

18:00

10 years Anniversary ceremony (Taking a photograph)111

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Address 1 : President of Ritsumeikan University, Mikio YOSHIDA
Ritsumeikan University was authorized
as a UNESCO chair in the year 2006
in the field of cultural heritage anddisaster mitigation. This symposium
is being held to commemorate the10th anniversary of this recognition.
For ten years, our Institute of Disaster
Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage
has been organizing the international
training program under the UNESCO
Chair program on cultural heritage andrisk management. We, at Ritsumeikan
University, are extremely proud that
Fig. 1 Address 1: Mikio Yoshidathis international training program hasreceived highly favorable reviews outside Japan, as well. In 2003, we established the ResearchCenter for Urban Cultural Heritage Disaster Mitigation, which is the predecessor of the Institute ofDisaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage that we have today, and since then, we have actively
promoted academic research on cultural heritage and disaster mitigation of historic cities, which
is of unparalleled importance to humanity, by merging the fields of humanities and social scienceswith science and engineering. Kyoto boasts of rich cultural heritage. Ritsumeikan University
also traces its roots back to the Kinugasa Campus in Kyoto, where it was first founded and issurrounded by various cultural heritage sites, including Kinkaku-ji, Ryōan-ji, Tōji-in and Ninna-ji. We
are blessed with such a campus; therefore, we believe it is our natural responsibility to endeavor topromote disaster mitigation of cultural heritage.
We are currently in the process of drawing up the midterm academic plan for the year 2020,and one of our goals is to become a global research university. Today, though I have heard thatparticipants who took up the training program in the last few years will be presenting their activity
reports, I am very glad that you have taken the learning from Ritsumeikan University back home
and are actively leading disaster mitigation of cultural heritage in your respective countries. This is
one of the outcomes of “Globalization of research” that we have been aiming to achieve.
Starting with this institute, Ritsumeikan will continue promoting the advancement of research andglobalization in various fields, with the aim of contributing to society not just in Japan, but also on a
global scale in Asia, Europe, and the United States.
Address 2 : Former director of Rits-DMUCH, Kenzo TOKI
The international training program is a kind of lecture, but since it is a project, it is different from a
regular department lecture and is bound to start somewhere and end somewhere. I will introduce
the past ten years of the international training program as briefly as possible.
・About Mr. Herb Stovel
Mr. Herb Stovel visited us shortly after our Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage
was established and spoke on this topic. He explained the importance of having an international112

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Fig. 2 Address 2: Kenzo Toki

・The three people who designed the international training program
I will next introduce the three people who designed the international training program. Mr. Joe
King took over from Mr. Herb Stovel at ICCROM. We are extremely grateful to him for attending
the international training program every year. Mr. Rohit Jigyasu is leading our training project here
and is a leader in the true sense of the word. Mr. Masuda Kanefusa, though not in the Ritsumeikan
University now, was the first person who invited Mr. Stovel here, and it was the both of us who
suggested that we need to hear his views. The initial actual operations of the center will beoverseen by both of us.
・COE and Toyota Foundation
There are few circles outside ITC. The outermost circle is a project called COE from the Japanese
Government, for which we were receiving about 1 million dollars annually. Based on this cost, we
set up the Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage (Rits-DMUCH). One of the
projects amongst these is ITC, and the cost of this project is approximately 100,000 dollars. We
have used approximately one-tenth of the amount received from the Government and have reached
the current stage. The Government project came to an end in the year 2012. Therefore, the Instituteof Disaster Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage (R-DMUCH) had to become an independent unit.
Ritsumeikan is providing us the required funds to become independent. However, this amount is
not 1 million dollars annually, but around 200,000 dollars, so currently half of this fund is being used
for ITC.
With 100,000 dollars, we cannot do what we want. For example, we have had several requests forincreasing the number of international trainees, but we have only this much budget right now. We
also have limited manpower to manage any increase in the number of participants, so we could notaccommodate this request. After the Toyota Foundation came to our rescue three years ago, theinternational training program has made great strides.
In the year 2006, the number of applicants from other countries was about eight participants fromfour countries, but this number grew quickly. We had very few applicants when we had the Tohoku
Earthquake in 2011, but we received several applications the following year. This year, we had
about 150 applications. Initially, we were able to accommodate very few participants in the program
due to cost and manpower constraints, but with the help of Toyota Foundation, we have been able
to increase that number. I think you can understand how effective the Toyota Foundation has beenin promoting this program.

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'training program for people across the world,
and we were extremely motivated by his talk.
At that point, we decided that we should
design something along these lines. Though
Mr. Herb Stovel was not directly involved, hegave us the inspiration to initiate this activity,and so in that sense, we regard him as thefather of the international training program.
Without the Nara Document, Japanese
wooden buildings would not have become
world heritage, and thanks to Mr. Herb
Stovel, various structures made of wood,
paper or mud in Japan were listed underworld heritage. He has been hugely inspiring
to all of us.

・Follow-up training
We have had requests for follow-up training from the start. However, it was not possible so far

113to organize a follow-up training due to manpower and cost constraints, but thanks to the Toyota
Foundation, this has also become possible. We have been organizing it for the last three years,
and we are planning to have one more session this year. We will most likely be receiving the Toyota
Foundation grant, but we are doing a follow-up seminar in India before we start receiving funds
from the Toyota Foundation. I would like you to understand how much we wanted to do something
like this. We have been able to do such activities thanks to the Toyota Foundation.
More than anything else, we are happy that today mostly in the afternoon session, the trainees will
be sharing their experiences on how our training has helped them in their home countries. These
kinds of discussions have led to the follow-up training, and since they will be organizing it on
their own, they have requested Ritsumeikan University to support them. These very people havegathered amongst us today, and in the afternoon, they will be sharing what kind of activities they
are carrying out in their home countries. This is what we are happy and proud of more than anything
else.
Address 3 : Managing Director of Toyota Foundation, Hiroshi ITOThis international training program isa very important program under the
UNESCO Chair Program on Cultural
Heritage and Risk Management.
I would also like to thank Professor Toki,
Former Center Director, and Professor
Yoshida, President of Ritsumeikan
University. We have been carrying out
various kinds of supervision (support).
The Toyota Foundation is located in
the Shinjuku area of Tokyo. Although
Toyota is a car manufacturer, the Toyota
Foundation was established in 1974,
Fig. 3 Address 3: Hiroshi Itoand since then, it has supported alarge number of academic and academic-related activities. Particularly in Japan, the neighboring
countries, and in Pan-Asian countries, our Foundation has been supporting a large number of suchengagements. Even in the past, we have been providing flexible support. Also, in 2013, Japan's
Mount Fuji was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. To commemorate this achievement, theToyota Foundation wanted to do their bit and offered additional support to UNESCO. This is theinternational training program under the UNESCO Chair program activity aimed at protecting
cultural heritage. At Toyota Foundation, this is an ideal opportunity for us, and we are extremely
happy to be involved in this international collaboration.
Also, first of all, we have been providing the required support for these last three years, and inorder to address the needs more comprehensively, we are providing extended support. Extremely
priceless and valuable cultural heritage sites have suffered damage due to foolish acts by people,
and these actions inflict damage to the assets and property of mankind. This may be triggeredby political intent. Our foundation would like to support this challenge in its own way. We hope
to continue this kind of contribution to the international community in the future, as well. Also,
the Toyota Foundation is extremely thankful to be able to participate in such valuable activities.
Therefore, I will pray for the successful completion of this program. Thank you.
Key note speech 1 : Rohit JIGYASU (Ritsumeikan University)
I am thankful to the Toyota Foundation, Ritsumeikan University for giving us this opportunity.
We are happy that we can carry out UNESCO Chair programme on disaster mitigation and risk
management of cultural heritage.

114

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Fig. 4 Key note speech 1: Rohit Jigyasu

The National Museum of Natural History in Delhi (India) suffered extensive damage due to firein April 2016. Similarly cultural heritage has suffered damage due to floods in Balkans and to
Ayutthaya historical park due to 2011 Thailand floods. In 2013, widespread destruction was see inthe Himalayas in India that were ravaged by cloud burst and floods.
It has become impossible to cope with climate change, and damage to cultural heritage
has become a serious challenge. According to UNISDR, disasters such as floods, droughts,
windstorms, and cold waves that are largely due to climate change, are on rise.
We must consider the impact of urbanization on increasing vulnerabilities of cultural heritage. Kyoto
has been witnessing rapid urbanization in these last hundred years. China and India account for
one-third of the world’s population growth.
Cultural heritage is also at risk due to human acts such as war and terrorism as in the case of Syria.
In order to protect cultural heritage from disasters, it is important to carry out interdisciplinary
training, management of cultural heritage, restoration and undertake risk management in an
integrated manner by understanding where risks are concentrated and comprehensively manage
these risks. We need to come up with a risk management plan based on an integrated approach.
・Principle outcomes of ITC
Building of a powerful global network for disaster risk management of cultural heritage. It should
consist of people committed to scientific interaction and support for protecting cultural heritage
from disasters. International organizations, as well as local staff.
The ITC trainees are taking back home their learnings from the training course and leading various
initiatives in their respective regions and home countries. And we have involved to develop thecase study project tool.

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'Firstly, I would like to give some examplesof damage to cultural heritage sites. In the
Myanmar earthquake on August 24, 2016,
cultural heritage sites suffered extensive
damage, and more than 120 Pagodas weredamaged. In the earthquake in Italy on 24th
August 2016, there was serious damage
to a residential historic site. In the Nepal
earthquake about one year ago, Kathmandu,
which is a world heritage site, sufferedserious damage and apart from historicsites, several museums were also damaged
and not only the buildings but the artifacts
inside the museums were also destroyed.

Through the international training course, we are not just thinking about disaster response plan but
also pre disaster mitigation and preparedness by linking theories and methodologies with actual
case studies through lectures, site visits and workshops. Participants also get chance to discussand share their experiences and through this, we can learn not just about Japan’s efforts but also
learn about the initiatives of other countries.

115

・Challenges in the future
Synergy is important while
conceptualizing what needs to be
designed for the future. This meanssynergy in risk management ofi mmov able and movable culturalproperty, synergy in risk managementof cultural and natural heritage. Also there
needs to be greater focus on response
and recovery of cultural heritage following
a disaster. Last but not the least, it isimportant to recognize the complexityof the crisis situation that includes bothFig. 5 Key note speech 1 and the audiences
natural and human-induced disasters.
Also, it is important to strengthen the scientific network among professionals who are trained in thearea of disaster risk management of cultural heritage.
Video Message 1 : Giovanni BOCCARDI (UNESCO)
Over the past ten years, this program has become popular all over the world as a platform forinnovative experiences and experiments, and for implementing new challenges and ways ofworking. By collaborating with numerous cultural heritage preservation experts and disastermitigation experts, we have tried to strengthen our capabilities for disaster mitigation of cultural
heritage in many countries across the world. We have achieved wonderful results in a comparatively
short span of time. I think this is the result of the enormous and tremendous effort put in by several
people. Mr. Yoshida, President of Ritsumeikan University, Professor Toki, Professor Masuda,
Professor Jigyasu, Director Okubo, the list of names is endless. I feel extremely proud that UNESCO
has been able to collaborate with this international program so far.
The link between cultural heritage and disaster risk management is increasingly important intoday's world. We initially focused on cultural
heritage, especially preserving architectural
structures under cultural heritage. Today,
we play an important role in enhancing thedisaster mitigation capabilities of cultural
heritage, and in reducing disaster-relatedrisks. Due to tragic events and disputes in
the Middle East and Africa in the last few
years, the link between cultural heritage andthe identity of the community living there, or
their resilience to disasters and traumatic
experiences has come to light. This shows
us the roadmap to the future. This means
Fig. 6 Video Message 1 Giovanni Boccardithat we should collaborate to promote thepreservation of cultural heritage not just with technological advancements and innovations, andthough this is also very important, it is also necessary to respond from a social, humanitarian andsafety standpoint. We must think about how cultural heritage can contribute to enhancing thedisaster mitigation capabilities of our society. In this regard, UNESCO intends to collaborate closelywith Ritsumeikan University and various other institutions in UNESCO Chair.
Key note speech 2 : Joseph KING (ICCROM)
As ICCROM director, I think that this training program contributes to disaster mitigation of cultural
heritage and risk management. I would like to thank the President of Ritsumeikan University,1164.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

Professor Toki, Professor Okubo,
Professor Jigyasu, and Professor
Masuda. I think that this kind ofpartnership is very important.
I am also extremely thankful to the
Toyota Foundation for their excellent
contribution. Initially, we had only eighttrainees in ITC. Thanks to the Toyota
Foundation, we have doubled thatstrength and also expanded the scopeof our activities. I would like to use thisopportunity to thank everybody who
made this happen.
Fig. 7 Key note speech 2 Joseph KingICCROM has its headquar ters in
Rome. At the last meeting, after hearing Professor Yoshida's talk on the fire after the earthquake, we
continued to discuss this issue at ICCROM. It is important to have close tie-ups and collaborations
with universities as part of risk management of cultural heritage. It was in the Hyogo framework thatthe topic of risk management of cultural heritage was brought up for the first time.
Since 2006, ICCROM, ICOMOS, and Ritsumeikan University have collaborated to organize thiscourse for the 11th year. We are designing the curriculum for the 11th round of the course. ICCROM
has provided various kinds of support. Why is ICCROM supporting us? We need to think whatkind of needs and responsibilities we have. Firstly, we need to enhance our understanding of
cultural heritage. We must make a disaster mitigation plan for the world’s cultural heritage. Initially,
we had only a regular management plan and not a large-scale plan. With such needs, we had toincorporate world cultural heritage under overall risk management, and under this, we were able toformulate damage response measures. Secondly, we need to include risk management of cultural
heritage in the additional risk management framework and formulate an extensive risk management
plan. It is necessary to stress the importance of this activity. ITC has been this link. ITC became
the bridge linking cultural heritage and disaster mitigation. The concept of building resilience andenhancing disaster mitigation capabilities was emphasized. We were able to educate the people inthe communities on the importance of building resilience.
Under political, societal, and economic circumstances, technology and its design have changed.
Traditional beliefs and sensibilities no longer exist. At the time of starting ITC, we thought about
what is most important. We wanted to make use of traditional methods and thought about how we
can make use of traditional knowledge and manage traditional technology and building materials to
respond after a disaster and felt that it is important to create a sustainable community.
The other need is to focus on people and the community. As part of this, the importance of bottomup approach can be considered. We need people for disaster mitigation. However, it is notenough if we just write about it in books and leave them on the shelf. It is also important to know
how to respond when a disaster occurs and incorporate the community. Based on these needs,
Ritsumeikan University has come to play a central role as an academic institution in this overall
context. In the process, ICCROM also learned about disasters and could share its knowledge andexperience on protecting cultural heritage through brief trainings.
There are conflicts happening in so many places. Disaster mitigation management, risk
management, and introduction of respective case studies are important resources to know what weshould do and take stock of the situation. It is important to have training guidelines. Using the ITC
experience, you can contribute to activities after returning to your home country.
There are more opportunities for dialogues. Architects and experts on cultural heritage should nottalk about only their areas but instead, discuss with each other how to examine risk managementof cultural heritage. What was different in the Sendai meeting in 2015 as opposed to the Hyogo
meeting of 2005 was that they understood the importance of risk management of cultural heritage.

117

Importance of integration: I would like you to pay attention to the damage caused by disasters tocultural heritage and natural heritage. Many disasters have occurred after 2005 such as the Nepal
earthquake last year, the earthquake in Italy after that and so on. Damage to cultural heritagecaused by such disasters requires international attention, and for past disasters, we need to focus
not only on damages but also on restoration following the event.
This international training course of Ritsumeikan University has been through a very long journey.
We need to respond to not only climate change but also natural disasters or man-made disasters.
When such events happen, we should not be unprepared with our response, but we should provide
sustainable and universal training. The reason the ITC training has been successful is becauseof its close tie-ups and the collaboration of participants as a team to achieve great results. It is
important for people to collaborate, and large groups such as UNESCO, ICCROM need to be
involved.
Professor Toki, Professor Okubo, Professor Jigyasu, instructors, and the administrative staff havesupported us greatly. Professor Toki, in particular, has played a central role. I am very happy that I
have been able to contribute as a structural engineer and use Professor Toki's resources. I think I
have learned a lot from Professor Toki and this learning has made me wiser.
Video Message 2 : German Tiangco VELASQUEZ (UNISDR)The Sendai framework or agenda that will
be finally adopted focuses on what events
have occurred in the last ten years? It is asummary of the risks, number of casualties,
and population affected.
The number of casualties and victims
affected by climate change seems to be
increasing. In reality, it has reduced, and theresilience capability of people has improved
with the securing of evacuation routes andso on.
Also, in the last few years, the economic Fig. 8 Video Message 2: Jerry Velasquezdamage has increased. Countries withlarge losses are developed countries such as Japan and Europe. Cultural heritage sites are areasthat are vulnerable to natural disasters such as floods. The direct economic impact of damage tocultural heritage in the Nepal earthquake is 80 million dollars.
The Sendai Framework has been adopted, and as part of the disaster mitigation framework over the
next fifteen years, the important thing for cultural heritage is Goal No. 3 and 4. The goal is to reduce
the economic loss due to disasters to less than half by 2030.
The Hyogo framework did not address cultural heritage completely.
Promoting culture of disaster mitigation from both direct and indirect standpoints and aiming fordisaster mitigation with disaster resilience of cultural heritage towards a sustainable future.
Follow up activity report : Kai WEISE (Nepal, ITC 2008)
Since completing the ITC in 2008 I have been involved in various activities with Ritsumeikan in
Kathmandu in preparation for the next large earthquake. The Kathmandu Symposium on Disaster
Risk Management was held in February 2009. This was followed by the ITC in 2009 being carriedout partially in Kyoto and partially in Kathmandu. A research project on community disaster
preparedness and structural analysis of historical buildings was carried out in the Jatapur area ofPatan. These activities led to the integration of Disaster Risk Management into the draft amendmentof the Integrated Management Plan of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. The “Revisiting
Kathmandu” symposium was organized in November 2013 in preparation for the next large
earthquake.
118

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

A 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal on 25 April 2015 followed by numerous aftershocks
devastating hundreds of villages and a large number of the historical monuments. The destruction
was extensive and the response in respect to cultural heritage needed to be coordinated. The
preparation did have an impact on the response to the earthquake and on rehabilitation planning.
This presentation sets out to provide an overview of the preparations, the response and therehabilitation of cultural heritage linked to the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake.

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

119

120

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

121

122

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

123

124

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

125

126

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

127

128

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

1. Museum of Zaruma
Given that the city is regarded as a living museum, the objective is to incorporate risk management
as part of city planning and not just within the museum and its planned programmes.
Three approaches were defined: Urban, Architectural and Collection

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

Progress activity report : Juan Diego BADILLO REYES (Ecuador, ITC2014)
Though risk management is generally understood, there is still a lot of work to be done in its
application at a local level. There is still difficulty taking into account the real value of cultural
heritage assets when it comes to integration of disaster risk reduction in urban planning.
After the DMUCH training, I had the opportunity to work on two projects where risk management
was a serious issue. They were:

2. Cultural Heritage Planning Agenda for the city of Riobamba.
After a landslide in 1797 when the whole city was destroyed, three principles were implemented for
new cities in order to mitigate disasters:A) Roadway width to aid evacuation.
B) Several plazas to be designated as safety areas to gather people in case of evacuation
C) Height of houses should be limited to three stories.
These principles, among others, were highlighted in the agenda and proposed as guidelines for
new urban development.
129

130

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

131

132

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

133

Progress activity report: Sang sun JO (South Korea, ITC2012)
As a trainee of ITC 2012, the program was very helpful to achieve my professional task at thattime. After the program, I had applied my experience on planning and installation of disasterprevention system at Sungnyemun site. This heritage was damaged severely by arson in 2008 andrestored in 2013. And I have adapted useful knowledge gained from the course to that restoration
project. As I learnt during the course, I developed a scenario of fire and according to its result, I
and my restoration team have set an evacuation route and arranged disaster mitigation facilities.
Accordingly, we also developed an adequate manual.
Based on this training, I suggested basic principles for disaster prevention and prepared disastermitigation plan for the gates of Seoul city wall. Based on this, Seoul municipal authority is now
preparing a management plan for these heritages.
Since March 21th, I have worked in Research division of architectural heritage in NRICH(National
Research Institute of Cultural Heritage) and I am a leader of stability inspection team. There are 2
research associates and 3 research assistants in my team and we execute a minute inspection on
heritages which have structural or weathering problem. Also we conduct various researches on
structural behaviour of cultural heritages. The goal of these activities is to protect cultural heritage
and to prevent disaster.

1344.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

135

136

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

137

138

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

139

140

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

141

142

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

143

144

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Training of heritage professionals as first aiders is important for the preservation of cultural heritage
in areas of crisis and for saving cultural goods as well as the communities. In this regard, the firstaiders training has to focus on a wide range of topics: from the study on material characteristicsof the cultural properties, risk assessment, documentation, securing the site, stress management,
evaluation of the resilience potential of the site.
With these objectives, CHIEF has been founded in 2014 as a non-profit association of Civil
Protection; it involves and links together professionals from the field of Cultural Heritage and risk
management, in order to maximize the synergy between these two realities for the protection of theterritory and promotion of sustainable development.
The activities of CHIEF ONLUS are forecasting, prevention, education and rescue. In peacetime
our operators work with the communities performing special courses, forecasting and prevention
activities. On October 2014 CHIEF ONLUS has been authorised by the Municipality of Genoa andby the Superintendence for the Architectural and Artistic Heritage of Liguria to rescue and to give
first aid to the flooded monumental part of the cemetery of Staglieno in Genoa.
One year later, the 19th september 2015 CHIEF ONLUS organized a conference in Genoa at theMuseo Luzzati entitled: “Protection of cultural heritage in crisis areas. Resilience and culture of Civil
Protection. Institutions, tools and training, the role of the specialized volunteer. Who, how, where,
why: case histories and comparing experiences”.
At the moment CHIEF ONLUS has been authorised together, with Cesmar7, our associated partner,by the Italian Civil Protection for a possible intervention of first aid in areas of central Italy hit by theearthquake on 24th August. A pre call for the selection of volunteers has been disseminate for any
future interventions in these areas. Moreover, Chief Onlus offered to collaborate with Ms. Aparna
Tandon of ICCROM to create a Crowdmap of the territories affected by the earthquake for cultural
heritage monitoring through active community involvement.

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

Progress activity report: Barbara CARANZA (Italy, ITC2013)
ITALY: CHIEF- CULTURAL HERITAGE INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY FORCE
In Italy, to rescue cultural heritage in case of disaster, it was common practice, to employ only
volunteers, who are not trained. Until CHIEF ONLUS foundation, a body of professionals for the
emergency situations (conservators, archaeologists, architects, engineers …) didn’t exist in Italy.

We firmly believe that promoting an active participation of the local communities is fundamental
since they are the real beneficiaries of any intervention carried out in their territories and they often
work volunarily due to their close association with heritages. For this reason the cultural property
could become the actual place where people can build resilience and it can also take on newvalues. When it comes to the protection of the cultural goods, the community has to be involvedin the practical works and also in the decision making process and through these actions people
could recover positively from the tragedy.
145

146

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

147

148

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

149

150

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

151

152

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

153

154

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

155

156

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'157

Progress activity report: Hatthaya SIRIPHATTHANAKUN (Thailand, ITC2013)
Increasing Recognition of Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage in Thailand andSoutheast Asia
I am sharing my experience in disaster risk management for cultural heritage after attending
International Training Course Institute of Disater Risk Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage,
Ritsumeikan University (R-DMUCH) in 2013. It will comprise three parts as follow.
(1)Disaster Risk Management Plan for the Historic City of Ayutthaya, Thailand. The development,
implementation and challenges of the project under the Fine Arts department, Ministry of
Culture, Thailand will be explained to clarify why capacity building activities are intrinsic
needed for Thailand and Southeast Asia region.
(2) Capacity building activity in order to advance the understanding in disaster risk management
for cultural heritage. According to the content 1, I have been developing workshop/training
course for conservation practitioners in Southeast Asia. This initiative is being carried forward
as a five-year programme (2017/2018-2021/2022) of Southeast Asian Ministers of Education
Organisation Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts (SEAMEO-SPAFA) in collaboration
with Institute of Disater Risk Mitigation for Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH) and International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration ofCultural Property (ICCROM). In April 2016, the consultative meeting to develop this workshop/
training course was held at Bangkok, Thailand. The presentation will also provide the resultand progress of the meeting.
Promoting fundamental knowledge and concept of cultural heritage conservation in relation todisaster risk for school children. Additionally I will discuss a research project that focussed onother beneficiary groups. This project will be an example of how I attempt to adapt cultural heritage
conservation and disaster risk management principles to the younger generation.

158

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

159

160

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

161

162

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

163

164

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

165

166

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

167

168

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

169

170

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

The topics below will be introduced in the speech.
・Short information regarding YouCanRescue Heritage Initiative and It’s latest projects;
Exhibition in UN Fist World Humanitarian Summit, UNESCO 40 Th WHC, Heritage in My
Memory, B-Care (CHWB) Course-Albania.
・Representing disaster response stage with various examples
・Roles of architectural design, urban planning, heritage conservation and designers of these
disciplines for disaster risk mitigation
・Giving a message to the society via the project and perception control

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

Progress activity report: Zeynep GUL UNAL (Turkey, ITC2010)
As a result of this session, participants should be able to:・Importance of First Response to Cultural Heritage in Golden Hours
・Main points of bringing different organizations and professions together under a single initiative
for increasing the resilience of historic sites, building and users in case of a disaster・Identifying institutions working during different phases of a disaster management
・Lessons taken from the disaster response phase; Nepal Earthquake Case

171

172

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

173

174

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

175

176

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

177

178

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

179

180

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

181

182

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

183

184

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

185

186

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

187

188

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

189

Progress activity report: Abdelhamid SAYED (Egypt, ITC2014)
ITC was a starting point for me to spread the valuable knowledge that each participants gain byparticipating in this great course and collecting information and tips from each resource person
to construct his/her case study project back home. Starting from developing the DRM plan for
Historic Cairo that I drafted within the course and disseminating this experience to other sites in
Egypt such as Tuna el-Gabal and Pharaonic Island and to establish the Department of Disaster
Risk Management for Heritage in the Ministry of Antiquities for the first time are some of theachievements following my participation in the ITC.
From Kyoto to Cairo, many benchmarks have been established to transfer the knowledge of DRM
through this course. The first benchmark was enhancing the capacity of the Egyptian Heritage
Rescue Team to develop DRM plans in other sites in Egypt, another benchmark was in Tunis
to share that knowledge with other colleagues from Libya as well as in Erbil, Kurdistan – Iraq tobuild the capacity for colleagues from the Iraq region. And another stop was in Namibia to train
colleagues from 7 countries in Africa present nine WHS and to work with them closely to draft DRM
for their respective sites.
Finally, ITC is not just a course for providing knowledge; it empowers us to protect our Heritage.

190

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

191

192

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

193

194

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

195

196

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

197

198

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

199

200

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

201

202

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

203

204

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

205

206

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

207

208

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

209

210

4.3 Summaries and Outlines of Presentations

Report of the 10 years Anniversary Symposium of the UNESCO Chair International Training Course on Disaster
Risk Management of Cultural Heritage/Accomplishing Report of the TOYOTA Foundation 'Initiative Program'

Closing Address: Director of R-DMUCH, Takeyuki OKUBO
I would like to say a few words to commemorate the 10th anniversary symposium of the international
training course and the closing of the Toyota Foundation initiatives. I would like to thank all of you
who have taken time off from your busy schedule to participate in the symposium, and for spending
so much time with us today. We have received a lot of valuable inputs from the President - Mikio
Yoshida, Former Center Director - Kenzo Toki, Dr. Ito of the Toyota Foundation, Professor Rohit
Jigyasu, Professor Giovanni Boccardi of UNESCO, Mr. Joseph King from the International Centerfor the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, Mr. German Tiangco Velasquezfrom the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) secretariat, Mr.
Kai Weise, who has been working on the follow-up relief
activities in Nepal, and from everyone who has worked on
the presentations and discussions on the latest initiatives.
In the afternoon session, there were presentations by all
the trainees, who have participated in ITC, on their latest
activities. Mr. Juan Diego Badillo Reyes explained about
disaster mitigation and art as part of the museum project,
the new initiative of increasing awareness on disaster
preparedness through games, and combined initiativeon cultural property preservation and disaster mitigation
under the Riobamba 2025 project. Mr. Sangsun Jo from
Korea talked about how the disaster mitigation plans andevacuation plans have been proposed for all castle gatesalong with the Namdaemun restoration project, and his
active involvement as safety inspection lead in activities
such as structural surveys, and how such activities canalso be useful for one’s career development. Ms. Barbara
Caranza from Italy spoke about the 300 volunteers that are
currently active in the field with the setting up of “CHIEF”,
working with the port and dock volunteers on creating
an environment that facilitates restoration work, initiatinga training course for this, and making efforts to broaden
their scope to meet the needs of various regions. Ms.
Hatthaya Siriphatthanakun explained the developments Fig. 9 Closing by Takeyuki Okubo

211

in the Ayutthaya’s risk management plan that she had worked on during the training, the local
training arrangements being made in ASEAN countries over the next five years, and also theschool-based education approach to disaster preparedness education by leveraging the strengthsof “SEAMEO-SPAFA” in the education space. Ms. Zeynep Gul Unal from Turkey explained about
her active involvement in the field as a member of the rescue team, particularly about initiating a
new PHD course at the University, including cultural property preservation as part of the disastermitigation strategy in the national policy, and other practical initiatives. Mr. Abdelhamid Salah elSharief from Egypt talked about setting up the Disaster Risk Management Office in the Departmentof Archaeology of Egypt after the training, independently carrying out trainings while receiving
ICCROM support, developing relief teams in different regions, and expanding the scope of theiractivities outside Egypt, as well.
Based on the presentations, a panel discussion was conducted. The management team received
some valuable inputs that would be very beneficial and informative. As for the feedback on areasof improvement, points such as learning from past failures, probably having a guide that would give
participants an opportunity to prepare thoroughly for the course, having more mathematical-based
research as well as social science based research, activity design going forward, future approach,and so on. Especially, we think that the point that was raised on including a holiday between
the course is also a very important suggestion. I would like to thank Mr. Joseph King and all thepanelists once again for consolidating all the discussion points.
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all of you. It has reaffirmed my belief that this themeof overcoming disasters to preserve the world's cultural heritage and historic cities is extremely
important, and a topic of great interest to all of us. I sincerely hope that all of you who are herewith us here today will make the best use of the results of the discussions that we have had sofar, and continue to play a key role in leading initiatives on cultural heritage disaster mitigation inyour respective regions and organizations. We would like to take this opportunity on the 10th year
anniversary to strive for further improvement and growth of our initiatives, and therefore, we request
your continued support and cooperation.
Last but not the least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Toyota Foundation for their
extraordinary support, Professor Kenzo Toki, Professor Kanefusa Masuda, Professor Naoko Itaya,
the office staff, the student staff, and all those of you who have contributed in laying the foundation
for this training course. Thank you once again.

Fig. 10 ITC Family212

Appendix

List of Resource
Persons(As of 2016 September)
Kozo WATANABE
Vice Chancellor,
Ritsumeikan University
Kenzo TOKI
Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)
Takeyuki OKUBO
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
Director,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)
Rohit JIGYASUUNESCO Chair Holder,
President of ICCOMOS-ICORP,
Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)
Dowon KIM
Associate Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)
Naoko USHITANI ITAYA
Associate Professor,
Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University(R-DMUCH)
Atsushi KOMIYAAssistant Manager,
Cultural Asset Division, Board of Education,
Kyoto Prefecture
Masamitsu FUJIMOTO
Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University214

Lee BOSHER
Senior Lecturer,
The School of Civil and Building Engineering,
Loughborough University
Shinta YOSHITOMI
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
Yoshifumi SATOFUKA
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University
Kenji SAWAI
Professor Emeritus,
Setsunan University
Yoshinori MACHIDA
Citizens Safety Director,
Citizens Safety Section,
Safety and Ambulance Division,
Kyoto City Fire Department
Tomoki NAKAYA
Professor,
Department of Humanities,
Geography Major,
College of Letters,
Ritsumeikan University
Kazumasa HANAOKA
Associate Professor,
Department of Humanities,
Geography Major,
College of Letters,
Ritsumeikan University
Noriyoshi TSURUOKAManager,
Cultural Asset Division, Board of Education,
Kyoto Prefecture
Ryoichi FUKAGAWA
Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
College of Science and Engineering,
Ritsumeikan University

Yasumichi MURAKAMI
Senior Administrator,
Hyogo Pref. Board of Education
Tomo UEKI
Project General Manager,
Cultural Asset Division, Board of Education,
Sasayama City
Ichizo KOBAYASHI
President,
Sasayama Townscape Preservation Society
Kan MORIMOTO
Sasayama Townscape Preservation Society
Yonezo KITAYAMA
Sasayama Townscape Preservation Society

Yoshihiro HIRAOKA
Professor,
Architecture Design Laboratory,
Department of Design Information,
Miyagi University
Ken KANAI
Senior Cultural Properties Specialist,
Cultural Properties Department,
Agency for Cultural Affairs
Joseph Allan KING
Director of the Sites Unit, ICCROM
German Tiangco VELASQUEZ
Chief of Section, Advocacy and Outreach
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNISDR)
Giovanni BOCCARDI
Chief,
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Unit (CLT/EPR),
Culture Sector, UNESCO

Juan Diego BADILLO REYES
Architect,
Assistant professor
Zeynep Gül ÜNALProfessor,
Faculty of Architecture,
Restoration Department,
Yildiz Technical University
Sang sun JO
Senior Researcher,
Research Division of Architectural Heritage
National Research Institute of Cultural
Heritage
Barbara CARANZA
President of CHIEF,(Cultural Heritage International Emergency
Force) Onlus

Appendix

Wesley Webb CHEEK
Urban Studies Pre-Doctoral Fellow,
City, Culture and Community,
Tulane University

Kai Ube Prasad WEISE
Architect,
Planners' Alliance for the Himalayan & Allied
Regions (PAHAR Nepal)

Hatthaya SIRIPHATTHANAKUN
Specialist in Cultural Heritage Conversation,
SEAMEO SPAFA,Regional Centre forArchaeology and Fine Arts
Abdelhamid Salah Abdelhamid SAYED
Chairman,
Conservator in the Ministry of Antiquities,
Egyptian Heritage Rescue Foundation(EHRF);
Training & Capacity Building Unit Manager,
Egyptian Earth Construction Association(EECA)
Mingji CUI
Senior Researcher,
Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University
Go TANIBATA
Senior Researcher,
Kinugasa Research Organization,
Ritsumeikan University

215

List of Participants
Maria Cristina Vereza LODI
Architect Preservationist,
Rio de Janeiro Municipal Government / Rio
World Heritage InstituteFatma Saidi TWAHIR
Architect,Sites and Monuments; & Mombasa Old Town
Conservation Office,National Museums of Kenya
Muhammad Fathi Hasan AL-ABSI
Associate conservator Architect,Engineering and conservation department/
Department of Antiquities (DOA)
Dulce Maria GRIMALDI SIERRA
Senior conservator for conservation
and research of decorative elements at
archaeological sites,
Coordinación Nacional de Conservación delPatrimonio Cultural (CNCPC),
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia(INAH)

Alberto Enrique PASCUAL
Director,
Fundation CoMunidad
Sherwynne Bagaoisan AGUB
Legislative Staff Officer IV,
Senate Economic Planning and Policy Office,Senate of the Philippines
Mohamed ROUAI
Professor – researcher,
Earth Sciences Department,
Faculty of Sciences,
University Moulay Ismail, Meknes, Morocco.
Navneet YADAVAssociate Director,
Disaster Risk Management

Barbara MINGUEZ GARCIA
Consultant,
The World Bank

Claudia Cecilia GONZÁLEZ MUZZIOPartner at Ambito Consultores,
Ambito Consultores Ltda.

Vanessa Anne TANNER
Senior Heritage Advisor,
Wellington City Council,

Amna SHUJAAssistant Director -Recovery &Rehabilitation,
National Disaster Management Authority

Nermina KATKIĆ
Associate for archaeology,
Commission to Preserve National
Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina

216

Mihaela HĂRMĂNESCU
Lecturer, PhD Architect,‘Ion Mincu’ University of Architecture and
Urbanism,
Faculty of Urbanism

Maria Elena ALMESTAR URTEAGA
Senior Auditor – Specialist in Culture
Management and Cultural Heritage,
Contraloria General de la Republica

Photos of ITC 2016

Site visit of Kiyomizu-dera conservation place

Site visit for Kiyomizu-dera World Heritage site

Site visit of Preservation District (Citizen Hydrant)

Site visit of Ponto-cho where fire damaged

Field work for risk assessment at Ponto-cho

A lecture at R-DMUCH (Climate Change)

Discussion at R-DMUCH (Emergency response)

Appendix

The lecture by Cultural Asset Division, Kyoto Prefecture

217

218

The lecture of firefighting facilities at Ninna-ji WHS

Testing of fire prevention system at Ninna-ji WHS

Discussion with local community`s stakeholders

Workshop for designing recovery process

Discussion for designing recovery process

Final presentation of case projects and discussioni

Farewell and certification

A group photo of 10 years` anniversary symposium